ADVERTISEMENT

Father of 13 kids with 11 women owes $50,000 in child support

cigaretteman

HB King
May 29, 2001
79,446
62,566
113
When Norman Bennett got out of prison, he was supposed to become a productive member of society.

This wasn’t what anyone had in mind.

Bennett became a reproductive citizen: At age 31, he has at least 13 kids by 11 women.

That’s a tentative tally, because various court records seem to indicate that the Omaha man may have 15 kids by 13 women. Or more.

That court officials weren’t sure how many children he has speaks to the jaw-dropping nature of his case.

So does this: Bennett owes at least $50,000 in child support.

Douglas County District Judge Marlon Polk gave Bennett until Jan. 29 to start paying down on his debt with a $500 deposit. Either he pays or he goes to jail for 90 days, the judge ruled.

The judge gave Bennett a look of consternation and a simple declaration.

“This is not cool,” Polk said, eyeballing Bennett.

Turns out, Bennett isn’t even Omaha’s most prolific procreator.

Attorney Meagan Spomer, who works in child-support enforcement, told Polk that she has heard of a deadbeat dad with 23 kids by 15 women.

At that, Polk looked incredulous.

Those gathered in Polk’s courtroom pondered the societal consequences of a man fathering that many children by that many women. How do those children succeed? What impact can Bennett possibly have on their upbringing?

Polk contemplated, but stopped short of asking, another question: Could Bennett name all of his children?

Some judges have required deadbeat dads to name each child. Any slip-ups, and certain judges will send dads to jail on the spot.

By law, child-support cases are supposed to stop short of becoming a sort of punitive paternity court. High court rulings have essentially outlawed the concept of a debtor’s prison — where defendants go to jail simply because they can’t pay down their financial obligations such as child support.

The Nebraska Supreme Court has ruled that any jail time in child-support cases should be coercive — an attempt to force the dad to chip away at whatever he owes.

One important note: Whether Bennett pays up or not, the women he impregnated are receiving child support through the welfare program formerly known as Aid to Dependent Children.

In other words, state and federal taxpayers are partly footing the bill for Bennett’s brood.

In turn, the State of Nebraska seeks reimbursement from fathers, such as Bennett, who have impregnated the women now receiving welfare.

Another note: Bennett’s payments are on the low end — ranging from $50 to $72 per child per month. Multiply those amounts by more than a dozen children, add in interest — and Bennett probably will never come close to paying what he owes.

The State of Nebraska can garnish wages to recoup taxpayers’ money. However, the dad needs a paycheck before that can happen. And in this case, Bennett and his attorney told the judge that, as a felon with a gun conviction, he has struggled to find steady work.

Bennett told the judge he works in construction but has been laid off as work tapers off in the winter. He said he recently applied for a job at Omaha’s airport but hadn’t heard back.

Beyond that, Bennett had little to say.

He simply sat with his head down as Polk filled out jail orders. Turns out, filling out a dozen or so jail orders takes considerable time.

The clock was ticking; about 30 minutes passed before Polk finished the final order.

Now, another clock is ticking. Bennett has one month left. Next time he returns to court, he either pays, or he stays.

“The court is going to give you an opportunity to pay some and, if you don’t pay, you’re going to jail,” Polk told Bennett. “Because this is not cool.”

http://www.omaha.com/news/crime/fat...cle_fe83a649-b242-5e8d-9372-84124dc664c0.html
 
Judge should have ordered him to pay up or face castration. (Snip jobs can be reversed....loping off the nards can't).
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
but, he's so lovable...

568204ecf304b.image.jpg
 
Oh boy a lot of things to unpack here so where to start.

1. Jail is not the answer for this sort of thing. House arrest if possible with allowances to go to work and back as well as trips needed to apply for work. But ultimately anything that prevents him from going to work isn't helping. The house arrest should be firm and restrict female visitors to primary relatives only.

2. The law often requires men like him to pay back welfare money, but he's often just as poor as the women who have the children. It's a ridiculous notion IMO. Not against the courts going after someone for child support, but you have to make it to where it's reasonable that he could actually pay and still eat. In this case though it doesn't look like the amounts are that over the top, however the addition of interest is silly. It's a punitive measure that does nothing for the children and only makes us feel better about "sticking it to a deadbeat" Any measures we take aught to be focused only on collecting child support to help the children and not on trying to punish the father for the sake of punishing him. (Punishment that collects money for the children is fine, punishment that collects money for the state, or makes it more unlikely that money will be collected for the children is worthless and not helpful.)

3. How in the world do guys like this get so many women to have unprotected sex with them? Like seriously what about him is so freaking attractive that it seems no matter where he goes he's able to get women to have unprotected sex with him? Is it the time he's spent in prison or is it his lack of steady employment?
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Oh boy a lot of things to unpack here so where to start.

3. How in the world do guys like this get so many women to have unprotected sex with them? Like seriously what about him is so freaking attractive that it seems no matter where he goes he's able to get women to have unprotected sex with him? Is it the time he's spent in prison or is it his lack of steady employment?

The current welfare system incentives women to have many children.

It doesn't matter who it's with. I doubt those women are interested in building the traditional nuclear family.
 
The current welfare system incentives women to have many children.

It doesn't matter who it's with. I doubt those women are interested in building the traditional nuclear family.

Not only that, I've seen women quit their job because they're on the verge of "making too much money for the year" and the extra cash wouldn't be worth losing their benefits.
 
The current welfare system incentives women to have many children.

It doesn't matter who it's with. I doubt those women are interested in building the traditional nuclear family.

Winner. The left doesn't want to look critically at the economic incentive THEY created to keep poors and uneducateds (often blacks too) down.
 
Not only that, I've seen women quit their job because they're on the verge of "making too much money for the year" and the extra cash wouldn't be worth losing their benefits.

A good reason IMO to tier benefits so that for example for every 2 dollars you earn in income you only lose a dollar in benefits. The point being that while the benefits should be there, there should never be a point in which it does not make financial sense to work, even in low wage jobs.
 
The current welfare system incentives women to have many children.

It doesn't matter who it's with. I doubt those women are interested in building the traditional nuclear family.

I'm not as certain about this. . . can you mathematically show that the extra kid brings in more income then he or she costs even at a minimum standard of care?

I'm more likely to consider this sort of thing just a general lack of responsibility and maturity rather then a calculated attempt to get more money.
 
A good reason IMO to tier benefits so that for example for every dollar you earn in income you only lose a dollar in benefits. The point being that while the benefits should be there, there should never be a point in which it does not make financial sense to work, even in low wage jobs.

Did you really mean to type that or is there a typo above? You're actually suggesting that we should approach these women with this offer:

1) Work, but don't get any additional money for it
2) Just don't do anything and keep the money you already get for "free"

I'm not seeing the incentive to go hustle into work each day?
 
I'm not as certain about this. . . can you mathematically show that the extra kid brings in more income then he or she costs even at a minimum standard of care?

I'm more likely to consider this sort of thing just a general lack of responsibility and maturity rather then a calculated attempt to get more money.

According to payment rates published by the State of Illinois' Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), monthly payments for range from $384 to $471 per child, depending upon the age of the child:

dcfs.jpg


The maximum monthly payment (for a child age 12 and over) is $471 per month.
 
Damn, is Ciggy ragging on his voting base? Look at the bright side, Ciggy. You dems have thirteen more voters that you can own for the rest of their lives. It's like modern day slavery.

Just keep parroting that wingnut mythology Soup. You've been brainwashed well, my friend!
 
Did you really mean to type that or is there a typo above? You're actually suggesting that we should approach these women with this offer:

1) Work, but don't get any additional money for it
2) Just don't do anything and keep the money you already get for "free"

I'm not seeing the incentive to go hustle into work each day?

I ment you make 2 dollars you lose a dollar in benefits. I think I corrected that.
 
I ment you make 2 dollars you lose a dollar in benefits. I think I corrected that.

I see it corrected now. That would potentially make more sense. I still don't think you'd see a lot of these baby mommas rushing into work each day, but at the margin it might make a difference to some.

We might be better off in the long-term cutting these benefits off and paying people to get vasectomies. I imagine a lot of the men fathering these children don't give a crap about the kid (pretty obvious they don't) and might like another $1000 to spend on drugs instead? At any rate, let's get back on topic here - you cut off the benefits of having more kids and the people involved would magically find ways to have less kids.
 
I believe he played for the Seattle Supersonics back in the day.
 
I see it corrected now. That would potentially make more sense. I still don't think you'd see a lot of these baby mommas rushing into work each day, but at the margin it might make a difference to some.

We might be better off in the long-term cutting these benefits off and paying people to get vasectomies. I imagine a lot of the men fathering these children don't give a crap about the kid (pretty obvious they don't) and might like another $1000 to spend on drugs instead? At any rate, let's get back on topic here - you cut off the benefits of having more kids and the people involved would magically find ways to have less kids.

As for the fathers since forced sterilization is unconstitutional, my solution would be more of permanent house arrest until you are caught up. You get to go home (where female visitors are limited) and you get to go to work.

As for the issue of children, perhaps creating a program similar to SNAP would work. Limit the use of the money to children's products, clothes, food, other supplies etc.
 
Just keep parroting that wingnut mythology Soup. You've been brainwashed well, my friend!

What mythology? How has the democratic party helped the African Americans in this country. The AA's were better off decades ago than they are now. Why haven't all your programs worked? Could it be because they were never meant to work, and were implemented to bring the black man under the politicians thumb?
 
What mythology? How has the democratic party helped the African Americans in this country. The AA's were better off decades ago than they are now. Why haven't all your programs worked? Could it be because they were never meant to work, and were implemented to bring the black man under the politicians thumb?

Really. . . African Americans where better off decades ago? When exactly was it better? Was that a decade where one of them could be photographed being lynched by a crowd and somehow have no one found guilty of the murder or the decade when going to the good school where the white folks go ment walking through large crowds shouting death threats at them.

I mean it's one thing to say that their programs have had unintended consequences but saying they where better off decades ago, I'm trying to figure out when this time is.
 
Really. . . African Americans where better off decades ago? When exactly was it better? Was that a decade where one of them could be photographed being lynched by a crowd and somehow have no one found guilty of the murder or the decade when going to the good school where the white folks go ment walking through large crowds shouting death threats at them.

I mean it's one thing to say that their programs have had unintended consequences but saying they where better off decades ago, I'm trying to figure out when this time is.

They were also business owners, complete families, and weren't forever stuck at the poverty line like they are now. This system has completely failed them. Inflation and minimum wage have completely devastated the black community.

Don't take what happened occasionally, by horrible people, and let it define every aspect of life.
 
They were also business owners, complete families, and weren't forever stuck at the poverty line like they are now. This system has completely failed them. Inflation and minimum wage have completely devastated the black community.

Don't take what happened occasionally, by horrible people, and let it define every aspect of life.

I'm pretty sure it happened more then occasionally and lesser stuff happened even more often. When you have pictures where literally the whole town came out to watch a black guy be hung because he looked the wrong way at a white woman, it was more then just an occasional thing. No one would be that brave to come out and spectate at a freaking murder unless there was an outright culture that they can do ANYTHING to a black person and not be punished.

There are business owners and complete families now. And there was a lot of poverty in black communities then too.

I would argue that liberal social attitudes failed them and when you combine that with the poverty that many where already in, it made things a lot worse.

And I don't know that conservatives have actually done much to help. The closest conservatives have come to trying to help is school vouchers. But I don't see conservatives pushing very hard to provide free education for those in poverty and have the aptitude (away from criminal elements) no matter if that be vocational training, community college, or 4 year college degrees.

If someone wanted to offer that along with say the money to help take care of them and their family until they completed the training I'd be behind that. But I'm pretty sure most conservatives wouldn't want to pay for that "hand up"
 
I'm pretty sure it happened more then occasionally and lesser stuff happened even more often. When you have pictures where literally the whole town came out to watch a black guy be hung because he looked the wrong way at a white woman, it was more then just an occasional thing.

There are business owners and complete families now. And there was a lot of poverty in black communities then too.

I would argue that liberal social attitudes failed them and when you combine that with the poverty that many where already in, it made things a lot worse.

And I don't know that conservatives have actually done much to help. The closest conservatives have come to trying to help is school vouchers. But I don't see conservatives pushing very hard to provide free education for those in poverty and have the aptitude (away from criminal elements) no matter if that be vocational training, community college, or 4 year college degrees.

If someone wanted to offer that along with say the money to help take care of them and their family until they completed the training I'd be behind that. But I'm pretty sure most conservatives wouldn't want to pay for that "hand up"

So, I'm sure it's much better now that they are murdering each other by the tens of thousands, right? At least it isn't white people doing it I guess.
 
So, I'm sure it's much better now that they are murdering each other by the tens of thousands, right? At least it isn't white people doing it I guess.

Not saying it is, but when they kill each other they can and often are prosecuted for it at least.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT