Should a Man who owes Child Support get 50 years for non payment?

Question

http://www.wiscnews.com/pdr/news/295894

Man returning to city for mother's funeral arrested on child support charges

A former Pardeeville man wanted for five years for failing to pay more than $12,000 in child support was picked up by authorities Thursday after he returned to Portage for his mother's funeral.

Todd W. Bubolz, 42, of Brownsville, Texas, remains in jail on $2,500 cash bail after he was arrested at a restaurant Thursday evening. He was in town for the funeral of his mother, Karen Bubolz of Portage, who died Tuesday.

An arrest warrant for Bubolz was issued in March 2003 after five counts of failure to pay child support were charged against him, but the Columbia County Child Support Agency could not locate him for more than five years.

Bubolz was ordered in April 2001 to pay $152 per week in support for his four children, according to a criminal complaint. The Columbia County Child Support Agency received no payments from Bubolz between May 2001 and December 2002, the co

Answer 1

Fifty years?  Murderers get less time than that very often.  What is the world coming to?

Having said that, unless he had some financial problems, he should've made his payments.  I don't have any sympathy for parents who don't do their responsibilities in raising their kids.

Answer 2

....only if parents who refuse visitation with the other parent can be sent to jail for 50 years too.

Answer 3

No, that's ridiculous. How the h**l has he managed to get FOUR kids though and not pay for them? Clearly he doesn't believe in birth control > why doesn't he get a vasectomy if he doesn't want kids?

Answer 4

The loser has four kids and skips town, he should at least have his wages garnished and yes, potentially do some jail time. Not 50 years, but I doubt that's really on the table if his bail is set at a mere $2,500.

Answer 5

It didn't say he was sentenced for 50 years, but that he might be sentenced for UP TO 50 years (that would be a maximum, not a dfinite, that's what he gets, sentence).

I imagine part of the complaint is contempt of court, as he ignored court orders.

Men who don't care whether their own children starve are scum.

But what I think SHOULD happen is that he be forced to pay (garnish his wages). Incarceration won't help the victims.

Why should his children suffer, just because he's sub-human?

Answer 6

I think if a man can't afford child support, he shouldn't have to pay for it - after all, its the woman that gets to keep the child.

I never understood how the mom gets to keep the child, AND claim support - she basically gets all the good and no bad, while the dad doesn't get the child and has to pay support = all bad no good.

Answer 7

You get less than that for murder.

I understand its not right to not support your offspring ... but thats excessive to stupid degrees.

Answer 8

No. That is ridiculous. The child support laws are totally sexist and wrong. If a woman can not afford a baby, she should not have it.

Answer 9

Wisconsin that makes sense; their AFDC recipients are one of the highest paid in the nation; with Colorado being one of the lowest.  They're really cracking down. I'm not sure of the resource right at the moment; Wisconsin has this three-tiered legal system going that favors women.   So, alot of those guys who do debunk are being roped in by the long arm of the law. However, 50 years, that's crazy.

Answer 10

Thats a bit too long. Men should pay child support but it should be done in a way so they know the money is going to their children and not mommy. Also, alimony is archaic and inutile.

Answer 11

Her body, her choice.