Right on!!!! I absolutely love living in DuPage and having my child support case here.

I have quite a few friends in Kane and Will Counties who've never received a court-ordered payment. Some of their children are almost legal adults! The processes that they have to go through to bring the deadbeats (and yes, some of them are women) back into court to enforce the previous order is an absolute logistical nightmare compared to what I've had to do here in DuPage!

Keep up the good work, DuPage County!

Use of the term"deadbeat dad" is just wrong. Where ther's a "deadbeat" dad, there was a deadbeat marriage. I am not suggesting that there aren't irresponsible mothers and fathers, but it is completely hypocritical to blame the finances of a failed marriage on one side, and then refer to them as "deadbeats". I have seen the inflamatory use of this term for years, yet have witnessed marriages collapse due to things the dad never was involved with, such as affairs that haf the father/husband as the victim. I support holding both parties fonancially accountible for

Does anyone know how to get my ex on the list? He hasn't paid in years and I don't have the funds to hire an attorney to take him back to court.

I support holding both parties accountible. Using inflamatory terms such as "deadbeat" merely extends the continuation of gender bias and creates an environment of divisiveness. As a society, we ought to be more adult than that, and still be able to have a society that follows norms and rules.
Just my opinion.

They should make the list public

Tracy, I could be wrong but I believe there used to be a list (with photos, if I recall correctly) available on the county's website.

Maybe the next time the sheriffs and law enforcement do this we'll have a Valentine's Day Massacre when fathers start shooting back. The KGB did this to political dissidents in the former USSR. When it became too risky to arrest dissidents, the KGB stopped. That's because when they went out at night to do these "middle-of-the-night roundups" they didn't know if they were coming home to their own families.

Also, it seems that females (especially on these posts) have an "entitlement mentality". My position is, if the mom cannot afford to support the children on her own, she is unfit and shouldn't have custody of the children. Instead of standing on the soapbox, mothers need to shut up or lose custody. There is no right to child support. If so, married people would also be getting it.

Dadzrites, perhaps you should do some research on this. Married people CAN get child support, actually.

And the "dad" takes just as much part in the creation of the child as the "mom", therefore he is JUST AS responsible for the raising of said child.

And there is actually a right to child support, per the government. If there wasn't, there wouldn't be any court orders to pay it, now would there?

Thanks for all the awesome comments here guys! Really good stuff!

Thanks for these comments, Julie and @Dadzrites.

Mothers aren't the ones with the right to child support. The children are.

This is a right for the CHILD, not the custodial parent. When you don't pay, you are cheating YOUR CHILD. And innocent person you should care about. I cannot believe anyone would deny they have a responsibility toward his or her own child.

Do I have an "entitlement mentality" towards children, in that they are "entitled" to receive support from BOTH people who brought them into being? You bet I do.

Good! If it's for the children then we need to impose a child support accountability form, like Social Security does with its form SSA-6230 that requires all Social Security monies for children from a disabled parenting owing child support be reported on a monthly, quarterly or yearly basis. Also, the representative payee (custodial parent) for the child(ren) will have to submit ALL bank account numbers (checking, savings, etc.) where the money is sent to, where it is withdrawn from, and how much, if any, is left over in the account each month, quarter or year.

If child support is for the children, then it must be made accountable to the government and to both parents, since the children are minors.

The difference between the two, Paul, is that Social Security is government money. Child support is private funds. The point of those forms is to confirm that the recipient is actually eligible to receive said funds per government standards. The only requirement for receiving child support funds is having a biological connection to the child.

I'd also like to point out that DuPage went entirely electronic a few years ago (forced on some of us), allowing for fund tracking online.

I apologize, the first time I read through that I missed that you said it should be made accountable to both parents as well as the government. I only responded to the government aspect of that. I agree with you on the fund monitoring being made available to both parents, assuming that the non-custodial parent plays an active role in said child's life (or at least makes an effort to).

Child support laws come from the Social Security Act under Title 42 U.S.C. Sections 659-671. Moreover, the government is directly involved in child support awards, collections and enforcement in order to get federal reimbursement incentive funds. Title 42 USC Sections 658 a & f. These amounts are submitted to the Federal government at the end of each fiscal year for reimbursement incentive funds which are then sent to the state, and the state puts this money into the general treasury. These monies are then used to pay judges', law enforcement, & child support workers' salaries and pensions.

According to the US Supreme Court in Tumey v. Ohio (1927), Ward v. Monroeville (1971) and Gibson v. Berryhill (1972), judges are other officers who sit in judgment of cases where they have a financial interest in the outcome of such cases, must disqualify themselves and rescind any orders that emanated from them, because they are to tempted to use their contempt powers to extort monies from unsuspecting citizens.

This constitutes an unconstitutional conflict-of-interest. Especially in this economic climate where we have a government created recession (known as a "Mancession" since 80% of those unemployed as a result of the recession are men who can't find jobs), where judges willfully refuse to reduce support obligations because men cannot find work. If married men lose their jobs the whole family pulls in their belts. Same goes here regarding child support.

I'd be interested in hearing where your information on the "Mancession" comes from. I personally know more women who've lost their jobs/careers due to the recession than men, though in this day and age I find it irrelevant the sex- it's more or less whoever is the breadwinner in the household that matters.

As for your last comparison to married men losing their jobs and the entire family pulling in its belt, that is exactly why PEOPLE (not just men, here) who are court-ordered to pay child support can file a petition to reduce support based on loss of income. I'd like to point out, however, that the custodial parent is still financially bound to support their child, regardless of work status....as should the non-custodial parent be.

Strictly for clarification here: you're saying that it's a conflict-of-interest for any judge to adjudicate a child support case simply because his (or her, I'd like to add) salary is partially funded by federal money via indirect routing??

Julie comments that Social Security is government money and child support is private funds. Wrong! Social Security is your money and my money taken from us and put into a trust fund as a purported "safety net" for our retirements or disabilities. This is our money taken from our paychecks each week.

As of 1984, under the Reagan Administration ( and earlier since 1965 when LBJ and the Democrat Congress turned Social Security into a general fund tax from the trust fund it was supposed to be). The government has stolen $25 TRILLION of OUR Social Security and interest that was supposed to be there for everyone in perpetuity. Think about it: if they left the money alone, no further need for child support or other support.

If we eliminate the entire $10 BILLION child support industry and send the monies saved directly to ALL child support recipients, no more "deadbeat dad" hysteria, no more "deadwood" government workers, no more ripping off taxpayers to run this boondoggle bureaucracy, no more debtor's prisons (which have already been outlawed for over 170 years), no more false allegations of domestic violence which run rampant in over 70% of divorce cases, etc.

Yes Paul, it is initially our money....that we hand over to the government per mandates, thereby it becomes the government's money to manage.

What do allegations of domestic violence (false or not) have to do with child support cases? You're running two competely separate tracks together here.

And I'm quite certain that with all of the monies not paid in support to children, it's still more than your $10 million estimation.

Paul Revere???Really, I thought real names were to be used on this site!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/business/06women.html?
NY Times, February 5, 2009 ("As Layoffs Surge, Women May Pass Men in Job Force"):
"The proportion of women who are working has changed very little since the recession started. But a full 82 percent of the job losses have befallen men, who are heavily represented in distressed industries like manufacturing and construction. Women tend to be employed in areas like education and health care, which are less sensitive to economic ups and downs, and in jobs that allow more time for child care and other domestic work. "" Given how stark and concentrated the job losses are among men, and that women represented a high proportion of the labor force in the beginning of this recession, women are now bearing the burden — or the opportunity, one could say — of being breadwinners,” says Heather Boushey, a senior economist at the Center for American Progress.
______________________________________________________________________
THE ATLANTIC
It's Not Just a Recession. It's a Mancession!
Jul 9 2009, 4:30 PM ET
By
Derek Thompson
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/07/its-not-just-a-recession-its-a-mancession/20991/
It's a recession that hurts men much more than women, and we are allegedly in the worst mancession in recent history. Eighty percent of job losses in the last two years were among men, said AEI scholar Christina Hoff Summers, and it could get worse.

The government's money to manage??? BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! Government can't manage it's way out of a paperbag, and you expect it to manage Social Security, let alone child support programs?????

The number is not $10 MILLION that you incorrectly stated. It's $10 BILLION (that's with 3 more zeroes at the end of a million). That's about the arrearages owed each year, according to government reports.

Domestic violence is not a separate track. It's all part and parcel of the great divorce, child custody and child support industry scam. Domestic violence tactics are used often in domestic relations courts in order to get custody of the children and the attendant financial windfall, including CHILD SUPPORT, that goes with it. Eliminating the $4 BILLION domestic violence (Violence Against Women Act ["VAWA"] which is gender discriminatory on its face) industry would add to the $10 BILLION child support industry, and give $14 BILLION to those owed child support.

And, yes Patricia, Paul Revere is a REAL name!

No Matthew Hendrickson, I have nothing to hide. I reserve the right to use Paul Revere as my real name. I've used it on other comment and blog sites for over 5 years. I would say any and all of the same things I'm saying here even if I did use my real name because I've said them for 25 years as a Fathers' Rights Consultant and Constitutional Law Consultant. I don't need to tell anyone who I am personally. It's my First Amendment Right and my Right to Privacy so as not to be harassed and have threats made against me or my family (which has occurred by feminist groups and their representatives over the years, and I've had them investigated as a result, and some have been charged and found guilty).

And, if you want the comment board to be open and honest, then we need more people, whether they use their factual names or not in order to avoid harassment and threats, to address the fallacies being presented by the female presenters herein.

What a vast conspiracy.

Obviously, this issue touches a hot button. I know a father who quit a high paying job to work part-time retail, simply to avoid having to pay child support and to further anger his ex. I know fathers who lost their jobs, cannot find work and cannot afford to pay the arranged child support amounts. How does the court decide what is right?

Fallacies? Julie Farrell says: :"I believe that domestic violence cases are inadmissable in court custody cases for one (obviously this is reviewed on an individualized basis, however)". Oh, really? They're inadmissable? Your statement is disingenuous. Domestic violence is absolutely admissable and every state has laws on the books say that custody and child support is determined by whether or not domestic violence is evident by one party or the other in the case.

And, you're comments about trying to "localize" child support and domestic violence is also disingenuous. It is not a local issue. Child support (& domestic violence) is a state and federal issue because of the massive amounts of taxpayers' monies being extorted to support their bureaucracies.

What a vast conspiracy? Another left-wing, Marxist comment. Shades of Hillary Clinton!

Jim Hankes: How does the court decide what is right? The courts don't. I have guys in the NY/NJ metro area that made $200,$200,$500,000 per year and more and are now without work for over 2 years. They worked on Wall St. They can't find comparable work. Now they're making $50-$90,000 per year or less. Yet, the courts willfully refuse to reduce their support and alimony obligations of almost half of their original salaries ($6K-$10K, or more, per month). This is happening in thousands of cases in just these 2 states. How many are these happening to in all other states, including big states like California, Texas, Florida, etc. Why? What is the court's incentive not to modify? It's called federal reimbursement incentive funding to the state. And, judges and child support caseworkers are NOW fraudulently including alimony into the child support calculus in order to increase the incentive funding to supplement the state budget, and hence, judicial and state employee salaries and pensions. The scam is afoot! And, Taxpayers need to be made aware of this fraud, extortion, racketeering and embezzlement (several child support caseworkers in PA, NJ and NY have been arrested and convicted of stealing hundreds of thousands in child support monies and transferring to their own personal accounts; while unsuspecting fathers are jailed for the non-payment).

I would like to know if there is a "deadbeat" Mother's list? There are plenty of women who support families and then get divorced thus creating a situation where a women must pay child support. It is pretty presumptuous of people to think that only men are responsible for paying child support these days. These posts are very one sided. Where is the equality in these posts?? Funny when the shoe is on the other foot.

You're right about the presumption, Chad. If you notice, however, I've been very careful to not specifically say "dads" because I know a lot of women who've defaulted the same. I think this list just happened to contain men at that level of dispute.

Understood Julie. I just think it's sending a bad message to the public. Another mis step by a government agency...shocker! LOL :-)

Hey Tony Cesare, there is no point of your post. Why even attempt to start problems? Contribute something to the dialogue instead of making personal ad hominem attacks.

Some people just like to stir the pot! (wink)

Wine, women and song.

Interesting comments. I think people are being a little overly sensitive - it just so happens that the 42 people the States Attorney is going after are all dads - and hence they are the 42 deadbeat dads the headline is referring to. Within the story, the States Attorney recognizes that all parents who fail to pay for their children's support are deadbeats and they are working to pursue all of them. Here is a link to the Illinois Child Support Division list of deadbeat parents. Illinois law allows the publishing of those who are delinquent by $5000 or more. http://www.deadbeatsillinois.com/ I see about ten women. See for yourself the proportion of men to women. These are the facts - they are not unfair or prejudicial, accept to the children that are growing up without their financial and emotional support.

All parents who fail to pay child support are deadbeats???? What if I paid over $100,000 in child support, then lost my job, couldn't find work for extended periods of time, and fell behind by $20,000. Would that still make me a "deadbeat dad" even though I paid over $100,000 in child support already? What about if I paid $10,000, lost my job, and was $10,000 in arrears? Would that make me a "deadbeat"?

The only "deadbeats" I see here are the States Attorneys who are looking to sensationalize a hysteria in order to justify their salaries, and their re-elections.

You have to remember too, some of these moms have no choice but to go through the state to get their child support for fear of their lives and their children. They found themselves in an abusive relationship, had the guts to leave, found a shelter and did what they had to do to live. Many times, the state goes after the father and when the father finds out. He quits that job and finds another, in order to avoid paying child support. These "deadbeats" that they are going after aren't all "angels" and things didn't just happen to them. There's a reason the courts are making them pay.

For the most part, the state can see with W2's and so on if they are avoiding their responsibility and being a "deadbeat" parent, or just someone who is down on their luck and will hopefully be able to come to some kind of civil agreement with the other party.

Hopefully after things cool down some after the parting of the ways, both parents can act as adults, instead of children raising children.

The courts are the problem. I just had a father call who lost his $140,000/yr. job and the court wouldn't reduce his $350 per week alimony to his wife (who is a personal trainer and makes between $50-$70K off the books; an IRS problem?) and $275/wk. in child support. He was never in arrears. He went to court for a reduction. The court wouldn't reduce except for knocking $2 per week off the child support--big deal! It took him 15 months to get a $75,000 job. They're garnishing 65% of his pay now, putting him out in the street; making him homeless. The wife can maintain the lifestyle she had during the divorce, but he can't. How does paying that money help his relationship with his children, when he has no place to bring them too? By taking all of this guy's pay, impoverishing him and putting him out in the street, it eliminates all incentive to work. He told me he'd rather go to jail because the gov't would pick up all of his food, clothing and housing expenses. The courts are forcing people to stop supporting their kids.

Sounds like he needs a lawyer that actually knows what he's doing, not the guy he's got now.

Can't afford a lawyer now because of what the prior one did!

Julie, and others, I am in the same situation, my ex owes me $36K+ in back child support. You do have help from the state, go to https://online.hfs.illinois.gov/online/entry-flow.htm?execution=e1s1 That is the site for the state child support division. Now, I'm telling you it takes a LONG time, but speaking as one that has tried going to court (twice) to get the support enforced and spending whatever money I was able to get on lawyer fees, I said forget it. But then I found out the state does help you. It's taking over a year, but hopefully soon, there will be movement on my situation. At least I hope so. It's killing me.

Children are considered a "human resource" by the government. Hence, the Dept. of Health and HUMAN Services. The court looks at children as property. Why? Because gov't can get big money for children as property, e..g, child support enforcement, child abuse prevention programs, domestic violence programs. It's all centered around children, because the children are the government's property under their parens patriae ("Super parent") authority.

We all like to talk about "it's for the children". No it's not. It's for the government. Always remember that. Government never does anything altruistic. There is always a motivation behind what they're doing. If they were so interested in children, why aren't there programs for visitation/parenting time enforcement????? Because there's no money in it for government.

Paul, these guys are not the big victim you're making them out to be. You don't just suddenly find yourself $36k behind in child support. A little cordial communications from both sides goes a LONG way. It's when one starts saying it's not my responsibility, that it becomes an issue and the courts have to interject. Both sides need to act like adults and it's not until one backs out on their responsibilities does it head back to court to become an issue. These people aren't "victims" of the courts as you'd like to suggest they are. Their "victims" of their own ignorance and irresponsibility.

The only satisfying part is some day the child will learn the truth, it always comes out. They'll know who the real victim was.... themselves of a supposed adult.

I don't get where you're trying to go with your comments about you don't suddenly find yourself behind in child support and that a little cordial communications goes a long way. Firstly, are you living under a rock? You've obviously never been in front of judges who financially rape child support payors because they don't have the ability to pay. I have. Judges set outrageously high pendente lite orders against me, even if the wife makes way more money than the husband. Then all of a sudden, the guy is out of the house, has to find other accommodations suitable for him and the children, and he has no income left. Then at the time of divorce, the judge finds that the guy owed more money and tacks it on as an arrears. No hearing necessary!

Cordial communications??? Where??? Attorneys tell their clients not to talk to each other and then the attorneys create the acrimony with all the viciousness they can muster out of their clients. Then when the woman gets everything she wants: custody of children, marital house, half the guy's salary in support & alimony, there is no more cordiality.

This is the real world babe!

By the way, People have a constitutional right to be ignorant and irresponsible.

Yes, someday the truth will come out and children find out the truth that dad wasn't so bad after all.

I love that saying Susan, thank you! Absolutely true, you need to know when to hold your tongue so your child figures it out on their own without your biased comments. The angrier you are at your ex, the angrier your child becomes at everyone and everything.

They have even wised up to grandparent visitations, thank God! Divorce is messy and hurtful. It takes some really strong willed people for the kids to come out of it unscathed for the most part.

Susan: Again, I ask you, where do you live? Under a rock? Your comments are altruistic to say the least. Your comments would carry merit IF both parents act like an adult and don't deal with attorneys who want to create acrimony to drive their bills--which happens all to often.

As for courts enforcing visitation agreements, tell me when the last time you've heard of a mother going to jail for visitation interference? And, when did you hear it? And, how many times have you heard of it?

You want to know the answer ahead of time: NEVER!

I am hoping that people on this thread do not take the bait from our friend Paul anymore. He clearly has had bad experiences and a certain viewpoint on government, courts, women and this topic. Domestic law is a mess in most states and much is left to whether you have a good judge or not - a real crap shoot. All of us know people who struggle through the process that is too long and very often driven by attorneys fees. For those with no money for a good attorney, the situation is even worse. Although it isn't realistic in many cases, using a collaborative mediator with a specialty in domestice law is the best way to end the marriage with minimal acrimony and expense - it can happen and hopefully the trend towards this type of process will increase. I thank God my husband and I get along after 15 years of marriage and we are not faced with these problems.

Hilary: I didn't have the bad experiences. I'm talking about the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of men around the country that have had these bad experiences by gender biased courts, bad women, lousy attorneys, and a tyrannical government. Obviously, you're an ostrich. You can't see the speeding freight train coming out of the tunnel because you're head is in the sand.

Let me clarify YOUR admissions: (1) Domestic law is a mess. (2) Having a good judge is a crap shoot. (3) Peopel struggle through the process. (4) Cases are driven by attorneys fees. (5) Those with no money for a good attorney have it worse. (6) Domestic law Collaborative mediators aren't realistic in many cases. Isn't that what I've said for two days now??

You made my case.

I rest my case.

Those that have not been married, let alone divorced, have no clue what they are talking about then in this blog. You can't be objective because you haven't been on the other side of the coin. And, you have no position about emotions and experiences unless you've walked the walk. Emotions and experiences, i.e., being passionate about an issue, and learning all there is to know about it is what you should be doing. You have no clue about child support either and how it works, where it comes from, and what it's for.

As I've said, if a parent with a child (I will not use the word "custodial" here because it denotes some form of criminality) that needs support from another parent because of divorce or paternity, should not be allowed to have custody. It's a redistribution of wealth that makes work for an entire industry of people. Throughout history, fathers were the primary parent until the last 50 years when radical feminism turned that on its head. Fathers controlled the children, and the household. That is why society stayed stable until the 1960's when radical feminism reared its ugly head and said that mothers should control the children. Now, we have the highest divorce rates in history as well as the most children born out of wedlock, or in single-parent, mother-headed households supported by "daddy government". Feminism (which is communism) has done more harm to this country than if we were invaded by the communists during the Cold War.

Wow Mr . Revere that reply certainly explains your anger and where it comes from.

Before the 196's women and children were beaten, many times within inches of their lives. That's not "control", that's barbaric! Thank God for the feminist movement when women found their voices and knew they were worth more than being a beating post! You don't have to be married, divorced or a single parent to know how wrong that is! Even my eight year old son knows it's wrong! We have the highest divorce rates and unwed mothers because woman won't put up with such barbaric treatment any longer! There's other countries that still believe in such barbaric thoughts, thank God it's not tolerated in the USA!

Ms. Pereira, can you back up your anecdotal allegations with facts and statistics as to what you say? I don't think so.

We have the highest divorce rates and unwed mothers because women won't put up with such barbaric treatment any longer???? No. We have the highest divorce rates thanks to radical feminist propaganda and indoctrination to destroy the family. You've been indoctrinated with the radical feminist mantra that "all men are created evil". You've been drinking the Kool-Aid for too long.

There are many studies and books out now saying that women don't know what they want, that they cannot have it all, they are burning out, and they have been duped by the feminist movement. Just look around. Men are no longer the breadwinners. Eighty percent of those who are unemployed during this Great Recession are men. Women are now the breadwinners and they don't like it because it takes time away from their families and children.

You need to educate yourself with knowledge before making stupid remarks like you just did. You have no statistics or proof to back up what you just said. You're making a statement based on propaganda. As Vladimir Lenin said about people like you supporting the communist regime: "You're a useful idiot".

Actually Mr Revere, I saw my sister get the snot beat out of her for no reason, and watched her hide in a shelter. I don't need propaganda. I lived it.

Great job on Article Alex! I hope they have more of these round ups, I have too many friends with exe's that are not paying or paying as little as possible each month for their child support! Kudos to our new County DA Berlin! I've met him a couple of times at our committeeman meetings and he's greatly impressed me now! He is all about the action and not just the words!

So Ms. Pereira and Ms. McDowell, you certainly paint with a "broad" brush, don't you? Your attitudes are that all men are bad because of what happened to your sister. I was attacked by my ex-wife with a knife. She tried to deny it and said it was a screwdriver. The prosecutor and judge looked at each other in disbelief. I had my car trashed when I would go and pick up my kids for parenting time. I had to bring the cops with me every time. My ex forged doctor's notes to keep me from seeing the kids. She's remarried 3 times and "accidentally" killed her 3rd husband. Two weeks later, she moved her boyfriend in to her house.

I'm not angry. I feel sorry for a woman like this because they beyond help and society let them down. She's got serious mental disturbance issues which was beyond my abilities. She needs professional help, like some on this comment blog.

Mr. Revere, I am not painting anyone with a broad brush. I think you have me confused with another poster. I just commented that I could see where your anger was coming from.

As to the original intent of the article I am happy to see something being done at the county level to enforce child support orders.

Another resource for some Julie, might be the organization "Take Back The Night" To find a link to their site, just google "take back the night dupage." Great source for abused women and children, and assault victims. There's always resources fortunately to be able to get women out and away from these barbaric situations. They may even be able to direct you to the help you need to get any back child support.

Recently overheard at the local Starbucks " Paul Revere better hope God isn't female."

Thank you, Rita. I probably won't follow up with the order already on file. Like I said about that one, he tries. It's the other one who I need to get an order on that's going to be a problem. He currently works a low-paying retail job intentionally to get his support order lowered for his son. This one will not be fun.

Lol @ Jim.

Don't you absolutely love it when someone accuses another of something that he or she is already doing?!

“Paul”, it’s obvious that you are knowledgeable of many of the nuances of the laws regarding divorce, custody, alimony/maintenance, and child support. With such knowledge you might have been able to enlighten people and tactfully debate your position. It is unfortunate that you are incapable of sharing this knowledge without being belligerent, condescending, and a boorish cad.

While some of your diatribe is supported by citing applicable regulations, other of statements are, well, “odd”, to say the least. If your intent in posting to this blog was to enlighten people and persuade them to consider your point of view, you have failed miserably. Your lack of decorum, female-bashing, red-scare, Orwellian, paranoid conspiracy theories have left everyone thinking that you are considerably less than a “useful idiot”.

One can only wonder if your use of the assumed name, “Paul Revere”, has emboldened you to act in such an outrageously loutish manner. If this is how you interact in person or when using your real name, then your ex-wife’s alleged actions and her award of child custody would appear quite understandable.

If you are incapable of conducting yourself in a civil manner, we would quite grateful if you would resist the temptation to post in the future. No one needs your abuse.

Thanks to Patch for providing a forum for free speach!
What good would our right to freedom of speach be if we did not practice it!

Julie Farrell is now a self-professed mental health expert.

Julie says: "Sometimes it really blows my mine when some people clearly need medication and try to blame it on others' alleged need for it.

I'm having flashbacks to a certain Mel Gibson movie....

and yes, Ed....thank you to Patch. I can't say this particular discussion has been enlightening, but it's certainly been entertaining :)"

I think that's called unauthorized practice of medicine/psychology/psychiatry. Isn't that a felony in most states?

Hey Matt Hendrickson, remove me from this comment blog. I'm bored with the people on this list who are below my pay grade and mental level.

Don't feed trolls. They have insatiable appetites, and will just poop all over the Patch when fed.

Just a friendly reminder to stay on topic and avoid ad hominem attacks. Thanks.

Bob Berlin is the new State's Attorney for Dupage County. He recently replaced Joseph Birkett who was appointed to the second district appellate court.

I just added to the pictures, I hope my information get in the right hands. I wish they had a program like they advertise on the t.v.....'Get your Money Now!!!!' for mom's that are owed soooo much!!!LOL

Haha, that would be nice! But it'd have to be for all custodial parents who are owed, not just moms.

Paul is so pleasant. It's mind-boggling that someone wanted to divorce him.