A news story I found today on AOL was about a former professional baseball player who owes upwards of $725,000 in back child support. The story goes on to explain that this person (I refuse to call him a man) bought a South Pacific island and lived there for 8 years with his current wife to avoid paying child support. He was finally returned to the US when his passport expired. This story is bad enough. A person doesn't want to pay $5000 a month in child support, which seems like a lot of money until you find out he purchased an island and a 21-room resort. But in the comments after the story, you find this:

dominguezfiv 12:28:26 PM Dec 14 2008

Think,think,think! Regardless of what the father made monetarily, it was temporary.The amount of $5000 per month, which the chidren would have never spent, would surely make the wife ample in funds to spend on herself. I am sure the $5000 was court mandated. The result of which was his leaving. If the court had, with his agreement, found an amount which he agrred was reasonable, his children would have seen his father all along, and he would not have been cornered. Additionally, the children, would have prefered to have a father all along and some support, say $1000 per month, than to have neither. Some court decisions, cause more damage than benefits to the children that are beign protected. What is needed is to improve situations and not worsen them. I am sure the mother was very happy at the court decision. Could she forsee the final results? They both lost. Not to mention the children.

I, on many occasions, have found numerous people I disagree with in the comments section of AOL. However, I never thought there would be even one person who thought this guy wasn't a bastard, and then that. The man bought an island and hid from his kids to avoid paying $5000 a month in child support. And this is the courts' and mother's fault? This guy's post is the very reason so many people don't have personal responsibility. Regardless of whether he agreed or disagreed with the amount, a MAN would have stayed behind and supported his children. A MAN would have wanted to be near his children, no amount of money would have changed that. Instead he ran off and left his kids high and dry. Regardless of whether you think a child is worth $5000 a month has nothing to do with it. If he truly couldn't afford the payments, he could have gone back to court a year later and proven that. Instead he is a coward, low-life, dead-beat dad, who has been living a life of luxury. He deserves every punishment he gets. He and the commenter are why the world is full of fatherless children. They make excuses for dead-beat dads so they feel justified in their actions.