Thread: Man with 30 kids - by 11 different mothers - seeks child support help

Originally Posted by Vhazhiphor

Originally Posted by dannyjenn

the amount of money you pay in child support should be based on how many kids you have and that kid's needs, not how much money you make.

And where does he get the money for his kid's needs? The man can't possibly pay more than he earns, and he still needs to pay his own rent and services and eat.

That's why I said that it is a problem -- he's not paying. If he were a millionaire with no job at all then he would be able to afford it. If he had a very high-paying job then he might be able to afford it.
Either way, how is that child support policy at all fair or even reasonable for all cases? If he had a very-high paying job and only had one kid then they'd be taking way too much money from him... if he had 30 kids and a low-paying job then they won't be taking nearly enough money from him... if he had a single kid with a ton of medical bills then they might not be taking away enough money from him...
I would think that that is not a general policy that applies to every single man who owes child support... so why is that the policy that is being used for this guy?

Originally Posted by dannyjenn

That's why I said that it is a problem -- he's not paying. If he were a millionaire with no job at all then he would be able to afford it. If he had a very high-paying job then he might be able to afford it.
Either way, how is that child support policy at all fair or even reasonable for all cases? If he had a very-high paying job and only had one kid then they'd be taking way too much money from him... if he had 30 kids and a low-paying job then they won't be taking nearly enough money from him... if he had a single kid with a ton of medical bills then they might not be taking away enough money from him...
I would think that that is not a general policy that applies to every single man who owes child support... so why is that the policy that is being used for this guy?

Well, this is what eHow has to say about it:

Originally Posted by eHow

Child support is determined by the income of both parents. If the parent with custody works, this is taken in to consideration. The non-custodial parent would still be ordered to support the child, but he or she may not be required to pay as much. The more money the non-custodial parent makes, the higher his or her child support payments are going to be.

It' may not be perfect, but like I said, he pays what he can. I'm assuming that the minimum wage job he has is all he's qualified to do. The man can't pull money out of thin air. Honestly, and this is in no way supporting Hatchett, I do agree he was terribly irresponsible, but what's the point of him paying? If it was only one, maybe two women. But $1.50 a month? That's... I mean, I guess it helps, but how much would you miss a dollar and forty nine cents out of your monthly paycheck?

The sad thing (in my opinion) about this whole mess is that he continued reproducing. To me, that says a lot about the mothers. If he had 30 children with 11 women, that means they kept coming back for more. I can't help but think there's going to be thirty members of society raised up by some not-very-bright parents in the near future.

According to Darwinism (if you take Darwinism at its most blunt), he's the most ideal human in the US.

Just food for thought.

Originally Posted by Hide in Plain Sight

According to Darwinism (if you take Darwinism at its most blunt), he's the most ideal human in the US.

Just food for thought.

On that thought -- and skirting the main topic, since it's not my job to pass judgment on other peoples' ways of life -- I never did understand the idea that passing on your genes was so important if you evolved by chance and were going to die anyway.

I can't tell who is worse. The man who kept sleeping with women while forgetting to wear condoms, or the women who kept sleeping with him even though he had like 30 kids.

Originally Posted by Gligar13

I can't tell who is worse. The man who kept sleeping with women while forgetting to wear condoms, or the women who kept sleeping with him even though he had like 30 kids.

I'm sure he's not advertising that before having sex. The question is though, why would they keep having sex with him after having one of his children already? It's 30 kids by 11 mothers, I doubt they were all multiple-births.

Did he want to make his life a dating sim? This is so hilarious and sad.

Originally Posted by Jay0173

Be fruitful and multiply. Words to live by?

Well, at least no one can claim he isn't heeding the word of the Lord...

Originally Posted by Jabberwocky

Well, at least no one can claim he isn't heeding the word of the Lord...

LOL. Well there is "heeding the word of the Lord" and then there is taking it to the extreme.

And want to bet he's not quite done? I mean, there was that one woman at the grocery checkout...

By mother of god... this is quite shocking... I've heard of historical kings and queens who had loads of children, but in the modern days...

I don't get why people are making such a big deal out of this. It's a man with 30 kids who can't pay child support. He's probably not even married to all 11 women, so he probably didn't have sex with them with the intention of having kids that they would both raise. I fail to see what's so... shocking.

Originally Posted by Vhazhiphor

There's the fertility doctor with over 70 children, and a sperm donor with over 400 (maybe).

And if you look at women, there's that one Russian woman who had 69 children. Wonder what kind of child support payments she had to pay.

Originally Posted by Hide in Plain Sight

According to Darwinism (if you take Darwinism at its most blunt), he's the most ideal human in the US.

Just food for thought.

I am very willing to bet that this is actually a case of Darwinism being completely ignored. He may have "planted his seed" numerous times and passed down his genetics, but that doesn't make him the most fit to do so.

Humanity is at a crossroads where it attempts to throw Darwinism out by helping the weak and unfit to reproduce. If we were still nomadic tribesmen as a species, I very much doubt this guy would have lasted through his childhood, based on his behaviour alone.

I can't find any personal information about him, like if the greater good of society saved him from impending self doom, but honestly, I would not be surprised.

In short, I disagree. Darwinism is survival of the fittest, not survival of the sluttiest.

And if you look at women, there's that one Russian woman who had 69 children. Wonder what kind of child support payments she had to pay.

None. There was no child support in feudal Russia, and if there was, she was married to the same man for all of those children apparently. And considering she was only his first wife, she likely died so that he could remarry, and would be exonerated of child support mumbo jumbo. Can't tax the dead, ya know.

ಠ_ಠ
what is this i can't even

Originally Posted by Caitlin

I am very willing to bet that this is actually a case of Darwinism being completely ignored. He may have "planted his seed" numerous times and passed down his genetics, but that doesn't make him the most fit to do so.

[...]

In short, I disagree. Darwinism is survival of the fittest, not survival of the sluttiest.

I think the "survival of the fittest" paradigm is that even if an unfit person was promiscuous and survived (which can happen, and definitely was the case here), his offspring wouldn't have much of a chance at survival, so the genetics wouldn't be passed down anyway.

Humanity is at a crossroads where it attempts to throw Darwinism out by helping the weak and unfit to reproduce. If we were still nomadic tribesmen as a species, I very much doubt this guy would have lasted through his childhood, based on his behaviour alone.

Humanity has been at this crossroads for thousands of years.

Where did we start to attempt to thwart Darwinism? I'd argue that religion is the key. All the early civilizations were religious (whether theistic or pagan). They believed in either an obedience to a higher power, or in the spirits of the Earth which were part of themselves that told them they should not harm another human being, or that should a human being come to harm, they should help them.

Much of modern society is based upon that core principle of the early civilizations - help other people. Not only the people who were already rich and able, but also the poor and needy. You know those creationists who pass on their myths and legends? They're not all liars and crooks. Some of them genuinely believe that by teaching pure Darwinism, society would fall apart at the seams. I'd certainly agree with them as far as indoctrination of Darwinism goes, but its teaching would certainly not be objectionable.

Certainly this anti-Darwinist mindset wasn't perfect - after all, the "help other people" principle only applied to people within your own society; people outside were fair game. This is why we have wars. But as we globalize further, and societies merge, everybody will be part of "their own society".

There have been numerous posts in here that say that such "stupid people" should not be able to reproduce. Is this an example of trying to "bring back Darwinism", or is it a more eugenic mindset?

And if you look at women, there's that one Russian woman who had 69 children. Wonder what kind of child support payments she had to pay.

None. There was no child support in feudal Russia, and if there was, she was married to the same man for all of those children apparently. And considering she was only his first wife, she likely died so that he could remarry, and would be exonerated of child support mumbo jumbo. Can't tax the dead, ya know.

It was a joke.

Originally Posted by Vhazhiphor

And where does he get the money for his kid's needs? The man can't possibly pay more than he earns, and he still needs to pay his own rent and services and eat.

A more cynical, moralistic person might say, "He either gets a better-paying job to be able to pay those payments, takes out a loan to pay them, or goes to jail for failing to pay them. It's his fault for having so many kids."

Originally Posted by Smuglord

A more cynical, moralistic person might say, "He either gets a better-paying job to be able to pay those payments, takes out a loan to pay them, or goes to jail for failing to pay them. It's his fault for having so many kids."

From what I understand, and I don't remember if I mentioned this before, the judge considers the person's qualifications when deciding how much he or she should pay; i.e. if he can go and get a higher paying job, then he pays in proportion to how much he can earn. So unless you want him to continue paying child support while supporting himself and paying for a career to make more money for his offspring, that's a bit out of the question.

Of course it's his fault, but you can't realistically pay money that you can't make.