« Friday Random Ten - The Hard Core Trance Edition | Main | For Cheapskates on Valentine's Day »

February 11, 2005

Father Kills 3 Year Old Child To Avoid Paying Child Support

Let me guess: "the system" is to blame for this father murdering his child. That's what fathers' rights activists would say.

Man convicted of killing his daughter in Detroit day care attack

Thursday, February 10, 2005


Bernard Kelly, the man accused of killing his three-year-old daughter because he did not want to pay child support, was convicted of murder today.

The Wayne County jury of 12 deliberated for about 58 minutes before coming back with a guilty verdict. Kelly, 37, showed no emotion as the verdict was read.

But Charleen Belue, the mother of 3-year-old Stefanie Belue, sobbed and hugged a family member. Stefanie was killed last Sept. 28 in her daycare center in west Detroit. She died from blunt force trauma to the head.

Two women, Stefanie’s caregivers, were shot by Kelly but survived. They each identified Kelly as the shooter. Kelly’s defense attorney argued that Kelly was not the man who entered the daycare center, and that he was at the gym at the time of the offense.

Kelly will be sentenced to mandatory life in prison with no chance of parole on March 3.

Posted on February 11, 2005 at 09:09 AM | Permalink


I doubt anyone could possibly blame the system for this... I mean, if the guy's motive was getting out of child support payments - there were more logical ways to go about shirking his responsibilities successfully, after all. Leaving the country is one example.

Posted by: Chloe at Feb 12, 2005 12:45:38 PM

"I doubt anyone could possibly blame the system for this... I mean, if the guy's motive was getting out of child support payments - there were more logical ways to go about shirking his responsibilities successfully, after all. Leaving the country is one example."

I would blame the system if he was a never-married father or 'recreational sperm donor' as I call them and he was given 'rights' of any kind to this child that allowed him access to commit the murder. I mean there was a case in California where the man threw the child from a cliff and tried to pretend child fell...and it was similar situation...and I'm sure there are many more just like it that we are not privy to knowing about because the media always paints these cases as something else in their never-ending attempts to make men look good...

It's just like how many MRAs and Fathers Rights groups became enraged at that Washington Post series that showed for the first time how many mothers are killed while pregnant or shortly thereafter so men can avoid paying child support...

That series was condemned mostly by men who nitpicked it to death. For instance, claiming that the universe of mothers included was not right...women up to a year after birth who were murdered should NOT have been included...but that might have even excluded women like Rae Carruth's victim, who died a few weeks after delivering baby...the baby survived (but Carruth wanted them BOTH dead) but she died AFTERWARDS...so using their reasoning, she would NOT even have been included...

Don't they understand that people plan things and wait...they don't do it as soon as it pops into their mind...Somebody planning something like this is going to wait until they have time alone with a child, like during a state-sanctioned visit...that's why we need to return to TRUSTING MOTHERS INSTINCTS and when she saids she doesn't want her baby going with someone, that baby isn't forced to go...

Anyway I just think that we need to consider carefully the rights and obligations we wish to extend to men who become fathers by dint of a one-night stand or casual sexual relationship...

Mothers in those situations have time to bond with and become attached to the child inutero, whereas men do not...It's probably nature's intent to ensure mothers, in all species including our own, care properly for their young...as it would be just as easy for mothers, without that inutero bond, to just up and walk away leaving their young either outside a firehouse or on the forest floor...

Unfortunately nature or evolution or God whatever you want to call that life force did NOT include men within that plan...It's just too bad for them however...too bad...

Blinding ourselves to these realities due to social engineers within Western society wishing to experiment with our kids in all kids of weird custody situations and switching back and forth of mothers' roles COULD be said to be the root cause of these crimes...

Thus, to be honest, whatever Judge or GAL (if one was involved) gave this man custody or visitation whatever, should be charged with a crime as well...

Sorry to be harsh but we have to start punishing these gender neutralized experts for their role in these crimes...

Ten years minimum sentence...hard time, no federal prison country club either...it will teach them a darn good lesson to about handing off children to men who THEY would be running into the next subway car to avoid, if that same guy showed up on the train next to them...

So the punishment should fit their crime...they would be FORCED to live with the same criminals they regularly hand off innocent child to for visitation and even custody...

Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 12, 2005 2:40:10 PM

My little girl has been stolen by her bitch of a mother, dissapeared to live with mommy and daddy in their cacooned christian piety.
I am branded a rapist, crack addict, alcoholic, demon possed,women beater who never pays child support.
I am over the loss of my liitle girl she will never know me, but every day I think of ways of seeking revenge.Amazing that through the reseach I have conducuted always leads to the same conclusion, poor mother and demented father.Funny that when you are pushed to a point of breaking, what do you do. try the legal route, yeh right I have a high court document giving me so called access to my daughter, toilet paper has more value.My psychosis grows as the days of longing to see my precious little girl. The truth of the matter is simple women use their children as battering rams or leverage against the former partners and then wonder why fathers act the way they do. Its not about the physical,it never will be, Its about knowing that all the money and all the wonders of the world mean nothing when you see your child born. This love is something men give and women see this as unique opportunity to control and manipulate. Every day a father commits a crime against a so called abused mother and family, angels weap in dispear and the women grieve. My liitle girl is so beautiful but why should she be denied the love of her father because her enstanged vendictive mother chooses so. Its not men who are abused its women.

Posted by: mark at Mar 17, 2005 1:14:03 AM

Well the only solution to these sorts of situations is to chose better people to partner with...I mean what else can we do?

The courts are NOT going to be able to micromanage every single situation between fighting parents and since there is a closer biological link between mother and child, common sense is usually going to come down on the side of the mother/child bond...

Thus, men need to more carefully chose their partners...it never ceases to amaze me how many men procreate from a one-night stand or casual sexual encounter...Careless sex can lead to 18 years of child support devastating your finances and lack of visitation enforcement devastating your emotional well-being...not to mention danger of disease...


Posted by: NYMOM at Mar 17, 2005 2:05:54 AM

NYMom, it's nice to see you supporting women.

Posted by: Katy at Mar 17, 2005 2:25:10 AM

"NYMom, it's nice to see you supporting women."

I always support women...

I have a whole blog and a website dedicated to it http://womenasmothers.blogspot.com

Supporting fairness in courts to BOTH parents DOES support mothers, as mothers are usually the most vulnerable in litigation since they generally make less income...

Courts are very friendly to money as you should already know.

You just don't realize it yet because you got custody on the cusp of when things began to change particularly for stay-at-home mothers, so you got lucky...Actually you got really lucky that your Judge disregarded the Evaluator's recommendation and gave you custody anyway...90% of Judges follow recommendation of GALs or Eval., then you would have appreciate the concept of fairness to both parents in court...

Your daughters will benefit from this concept since you won't have to worry about their ex, probably trying to avoid paying child support, getting custody of your grandchildren and then being allowed to move them thousands of miles away...

As will my daughters benefit and my granddaughter benefit...I'm a grandmother, so my kids are already raised, it's not a personal issue for me anymore...but I worry about my daughters and granddaughter and where the sort of thinking that would okay a moveaway thousands of miles away from a child's mother could lead for them eventually...

Posted by: NYMOM at Mar 17, 2005 10:10:03 AM

Hey, cool on the women's blog. I'll check it out.

And, I think you misunderstood. The evaluator in my case did
not recommend my ex getting custody. The evaluator recommended
changing the custody to "joint physical" so that I could not
move. She didn't understand/follow the CA laws that preclude a change
of custody based on a re-location alone (with no evidence of
"detriment"). That's not luck. That's illegal behavior.

I look forward to reading your blog...

Posted by: Katy at Mar 17, 2005 11:30:16 AM

uhhhh....someone's been posing as a woman....but HIS email is mat51@columbia.edu....do
you want to guess who it is? The first clue was the hateful posting...but includes personal info....
"I am branded a rapist, crack addict, alcoholic, demon possed,women beater who never pays child support." Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 12, 2005 2:40:10 PM

Now, why would a MAN use a user name like NYMOM unless it was meant to deceive?

From his behavior and statements...his ex has a good reason to protect her child from him.

For those of you who haven't figured out how...just right click his user id and click on properties...you'll see his email address...

Posted by: at Oct 7, 2005 1:22:44 AM

Father Kills 3 Year Old Child To Avoid Paying Child Support

I think this is just conservative anti-child support bs. What does the Detroit Free Press think is going to happen, the courts will stop ordering fathers from paying child support because of this article? The article is absurd.

Posted by: mike hardchisel at Oct 7, 2005 9:55:26 PM

No...the name of the poster is at the bottom of the post...the man who posted that comment you referred to is Mark.

But it is confusing when you look at all the posts together. I made the post just before Mark. So NYMOM was ending the previous post, not beginning his...

Posted by: NYMOM at Oct 8, 2005 11:14:32 AM

"Now, why would a MAN use a user name like NYMOM unless it was meant to deceive?"

It is confusing. Because why would anyone go to so much trouble make a single mother, divorced twice,ect, look so retarded?

Another one I can't figure out is the The Countess herself. She's more a "male sexist pig" than most male sexist are. I went back and archived a bunch blogs and read a few old articles of hers and noticed a pattern. She always exploits a woman or two with extremely bad judgement in intimate relationships and makes them look inept. A good example in NYMOM. And this article.

Posted by: mike hardchisel at Oct 8, 2005 2:45:33 PM

As much as I disagree with the actions that this man took by killing his own daughter, I can empathize with him and why he did that. Did anyone bother to ask the questions of whether he wanted to have this kid? Did the mother try to trap him? Did he protest his guts out trying to do whatever he could to get this woman to have an abortion or get an adoption?

Guys have absolutely no rights when it comes to whether a woman decides to keep the baby or not. If the guy wants the kid and the woman doesn't, she has the rights to terminate the pregnancy. If the guy doesn't want the baby and the woman does, he's totally screwed. 20% if his net income to someone who probably couldn't afford to have the child without his help. Trust me, I'm in this situation and I HATE it! I was totally trapped. "I have a hormonal imbalance and can't get pregnant" is what I heard. Well guess what, she did. What did she decide to do? Have the baby. Seems like the most illogical decision she could make. She would have no way of supporting herself and the child without my help. I make pretty good money and to see my hard earned money pissed away on a kid I didn't even want is about the second worst thing she could have done to me besides kill me! I offered her $15,000 to get an abortion or adoption, that's how much I didn't want to have a kid. Of course, I have no say in it whatsoever. Guess I shouldn't have trusted this girl and used a rubber, but unfortunately I did and I will feel the backlash for the next 18 years.

So this guy kills his daughter to avoid paying child support. I doubt he did it cause you'll make more money in your lifetime by not spending it in jail, even with the loss of 20% of your net income. I don't agree with his method, but I can see how someone would be so upset with the given situation to go so far. I've contemplated on many occasions to just get up and leave this dumb girl hanging there with nothing!

The laws for child support should be as such: If you're married and have a kid, you will have an obligation to pay. If not, then there should be no implied responsibility of the unwilling party to be forced to pay. Also, make it so that the woman finally has to make a hard choice. Abortion, adoption, or keep the kid. If she decides to keep the baby and is unmarried, she will not be eligible for any sort of benefit from the state. That way, taxpayers won't be burdened by a stupid decision to keep the child.

Having a child should be a wonderful thing, but I suspect that for many people, it is a nightmare.

Posted by: Tom at Feb 9, 2006 11:51:56 AM

When a man has sex and doesn't want a child, he had better use birth control. Blaming a pregnancy on her hormones is only an excuse. And there is no excuse for killing a toddler to get out of paying child support. You don't agree with his method, but you are making excuses for him. Stop making excuses. When a man and a woman have sex, there is always the possibility of pregnancy. Be prepared for it.

If a woman is unmarried, has a baby, and needs help from the state, face it that the state will track down the bio-dad to get reimbursement for TANF that it pays out. I happen to not agree with that, but it's reality, and you have to face it. I personally feel that single mothers would be better off without child support so that they don't have to deal with angry and disinterested men who had impregnated them. The loss of money will pale in comparison to having to deal with an angry, disinterested, resentful, and often antagonistic man who has to pay child support, especially since we now have government-funded "father involvement" programs to deal with. She's better off without the child support.

Posted by: The Countess at Feb 9, 2006 12:17:46 PM

I agree with Tom and am in the same boat.

I am so fed-up paying $600/month for next 18 years to some stupid bitch who had sex with me while I was half-unconcious, then has me pay for an abortion and sign away my rights as parent, only to sue for paternity and child support a year or 2 later. This is bullshit.

The "system" is to blame. They've made it so easy for a woman to collect money. If I was a chick I would have a 1/2 dozen fathers paying me 600+ per month. Tax free.

I am actually going to leave this country, I am so fed-up.

And to say it is us guys fault for having unprotected sex? That's bullshit too. There are only a few days a month when a woman can get pregnant, and if they don't know when that is by now, they're full of shit. We are being played and taken advantage of by the root of evil... women!

I think I ought to be able to sue AND not pay child support.

Posted by: Chris at Feb 10, 2006 11:44:02 AM