Speaking out against the child support system has become another one of America's taboo issues to challenge, much like abortion, race, and smoking. A challenger of such issues are deemed social misfits devoid of mainstream values, but there are many people who simply refuse to be a part of America's neo-liberal ideologies. If it were not for such people (people who challenge mainstream values) America would be a pit of immoral infamy, where everything abnormal is normal.

Because most of these issues are basically centered on personal preference and biases, according to race, gender, religion, and sexual preference, each of the issues are slapped with the label of de facto "minority issues." Minority issues are issues that stand in the face of the powerful majority, which are all things considered normal and or traditional. In the case of child support, fathers are the minority while mothers, butt-whipped men and husbands, and bitter female executives of state bureaucracies are the majority.

If any man or father attempts to challenge the child support system, they may as well shout to the world "I am an unfit father and infidel who hates my child!" simply because this is what people will consider him to be anyway. Fathers who have children not living with them, whether supporting the children or not, are systematically deemed unsuitable and a social misfit. It is an American cultural given to look upon the father of a fatherless child and wag your head, thanks to the gender biases of the child support system.

During the 80's and early nineties, women could walk into the state child support office and blurt out the name of any man in the vicinity of their neighborhood and without hesitation, the child support authorities would subpoena that man to court and convict him of child neglect, forcing him to pay child support. It had gotten to the point where the child did not even have to belong to the man, so long as the child support system bled money from some man who fit the description of the "deadbeat dad" stereotype.

In the late nineties the situation changed. However, bare in mind that the changes did not come as a result of men standing up for their rights (constitutional rights might I add), it came because more women were feeling the brunt of the system. They were being taken for child support as more and more of them began to take on the independent lifestyle and started making more money than their husbands and ex-husbands.

As the divorce rate skyrocketed and second wives started complaining about how much of their husbands checks were being garnished by child support, they began confronting the system, or encouraging their husbands to. The other bitter women in executive positions heard their voices and things started changing. Changing not for the better of the fathers, but for the better of the mothers who were now being taken for child support. But in their wicked scheme to reorder the system for their own benefit, they opened a loophole in the system that could benefit men.

Now, a father can not only get child support from the mother, but they can refute the laws of the system based on constitutional injustices and the right to due process. Though not many men know this loophole exist, it is there and can be exploited. The loophole is that if a man has never had the opportunity to defend himself in a court of law against the accusing mother, the child support system has no constitutional right to judge and convict that man. If the man looks up one day and there is a court order in his front door from child support, he can fight it based on the Bill of Rights, Amendment XIV, which states:

"No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of the law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This does not mean that the father does not have to support their child by being protected under the Constitution because all parents should support their children. It means that the child support system cannot force any man (or woman) to pay child support without first giving that person a fair trial. No more can the system enact child support enforcement based on the word of a distraught woman, but they have to hear and see both sides of the story. This is to stop any and all unjust enforcement of child support on innocent men.

To this day, the policies and procedures of the child support system are under review by the federal government. Many states have had to reconstruct their policies because more people are challenging them bases on Constitutional guidelines. The system must take under consideration the status of the father's social life, mental well-being, employment situation and family life. In addition to the social state and well-being of the mother, or custodial parent.

The child support system is just another American bureaucracy gone haywire, operating off the feelings and emotions of bitter feminist and hen-pecked men. Regardless of what American mainstream culture dictates, if a man loves his child and willingly wants to support it, there should be no state or government law that should be able to interfere with his chance to do so. The child support system is made for men who refuse to support their child, not men who are willingly to.

© 2003 by C.R. Hamilton