http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/man-fathered-30-kids-needs-break-child-support-140439765.html


no excuse

and why are there women who keep hooking up with him,,,getting pregnant by him, when he didnt take care of the kids he had?


I dont get it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTZk1y8iaho

And you thought Octomom had her hands full—a Tennessee man who has fathered 30 children is asking the courts for a break on child support.

Desmond Hatchett, 33, of Knoxville has children with 11 different women, reports WREG-TV.

The state already takes half his paycheck and divides it up, which doesn't amount to much when Hatchett is making only minimum wage. Some of the moms receive as little as $1.49 a month. The oldest child is 14 years old.

Hatchett explains how he reached such a critical mass: He had four kids in the same year. Twice.

Back in 2009 when Hatchett was in court to answer charges that many of the mothers were not receiving child support, he had 21 children. At the time, he said he was not going to father any more kids, but he ended up having nine more in the past three years.

The state cannot order Hatchett to stop making babies. He hasn't broken any laws, according to the report.

The government better start printing out those welfare checks.

Neuter him...........lol........seriously has he never heard of this thing they have called birth control? Or does he leave that up to the woman?

plenty of working single moms also have children with deadbeat dads,,,,

Why???? ,,,,

Maybe cuz, those single workin' moms can't keep their legs shut and quit havin' kids.

and because those boys cant be men and provide for what they created,,,,

It's the man's responsibility for birth control too.


And this joker ain't got any birth control or sense.

Perhaps a lobotomy and enema are necessitated for this dude!

There ought to be a time when the courts demand that these baby machines, whether female or male be neutered or spayed. They breed like animals, treat them like animals.

the courts will never touch 'reproductive rights'


much too big of a pandoras box,,,,,

they could do more to hold parents RESPONSIBLE for providing for their kids in some way though

either through their physical efforts or their financial ones...

the little assistance I got from the state I had to 'work' to receive, just like people who earn paychecks

children should not suffer, but their parents should be in some way productive in their effort to see they have what they need,,,

So in the meantime we support these "baby machines" . . . another flaw in the courts. When does a "right" become a "wrong?" Seems to me, reproductive rights are being abused here.

no, we encourage people to be 'productive' thats the point of being a part of a community,, not the money

if we can make sure the kids are ok and the 'baby machines' are likewise giving something in effort and time (even if some big corp doesnt personally pay them for it) , I dont see an abuse being done,,,,

okay, you have your view I have my own. Just curious, how do we encourage them? I mean it's one thing if you can afford to pay for your children, another thing entirely if you can't. I suppose this is one of those times having liberal view about things is an advantage, as you can flip-flop. It looks as though you were against it at the start of the thread.

IM against personal irresponsibility such as this. Thirty children dont just HAPPEN....sometime in the first four or five other options should seem reasonable to a mature responsible man....


I dont know what the moms do, but Im not going to assume they didnt just step up to handle what he isnt,, women do it everyday



Im not sure of the answer, outlawing sex wont happen and neither will mandating abortions

so all I know of thats left is to ENCOURAGE responsbility in adults when it comes to their bodies and the (potential) living consequences of sex, at least heterosexual sex, (children)

I'm for neither, outlawing sex....lol, or abortion. But a case like this is WAY past encouraging responsibility. I say a sterilization needs to be thought of when they are flipping burgers at 45 with only 8-9 kids to support. Condoms are given away free! Wrapping it up is A LOT cheaper than paying up for 18 years.

how would such a thing be done, ? what would be the terms?

would it be based on a financial sum or a set amount of hours spent with the children or some other standard?

Could you really be a good Dad to lets say 7 kids with 4 or 5 different mothers all over the county? Plus remember that guy is only making minimum wage, would it be fair to take time off to do something with one child while neglecting the others. Usually you don't get paid for time off when you are making minimum wage.

I consider those all personal value judgments, not something I want dictated by laws.