A Father Posted a $13.49 Child Support Check and Said His Ex Took Him to Court  the Internet Is Divided Over What the Story Actually Means 54%

By Sohini41%

7/16/2026, 5:07:52 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Burden of Proof, Confirmation Bias, and Quote-first Misdirection, with Anecdotal as the most egregious example at 32.9% saturation with 191 hits. Analysis detected 1,871 faulty-reasoning hits from 581 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 52% and a BS Rank of 54% (10,246 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 53.20% of the article peer group.

A father who posts on Instagram as @a_train86n claimed in a video that a court reduced his child support obligation to $13.49. 
The video was later reposted on X by @DailyLoud, where it drew significant attention. 
Viewers questioned whether the payment was fair and whether the video told the full story, as the man displayed what appears to be a child support check made payable for $13.49 through the Illinois State Disbursement Unit. 
The check shown in the video is dated July 1, 2026, and is payable to Shaniquia Nichols. 
The Daily Dot has chosen to publish the name as it appeared in the publicly posted video. 
In the caption accompanying the post , the creator claimed he had voluntarily been paying the child’s mother $300 per week before his financial difficulties. 
“Told her I need 2-3 months to get back on my feet and could only give her $150 a week,” he wrote. 
He also alleged that he has custody of his daughter three days each week, takes her to and from school every day, and covers daycare expenses. 
After the child’s mother got a formal child support order, though, a court adjusted his payment to $13.49. 
The comment on Instagram explained his custody arrangement. 
“Y’all must not have seen the part where he said he has the kid 3x a week, takes and picks the kid up from school and pays daycare expenses! 
And I’m pretty sure as an active dad he will continue to do so  HE SHOULDN’T have even been on child support to begin with!!!” 
they write. 
A man says he was voluntarily paying his child’s mother $300 a week, but after asking for just two months to get back on his feet financially, she filed for child support and the court ultimately ordered him to pay only $13 a month. pic.twitter.com/TLtBgCuVb9 
- Daily Loud (@DailyLoud) July 15, 2026 
On X, a user said about the mother of this man’s child, “[She] tried to be petty and Karma came right back.” 
Many commenters interpreted the alleged court decision as evidence that the father’s voluntary contributions were more than what the court believed he owed. 
A social media user added, “$161.88 A YEAR ik she sick y’all that’s 3k for the full 18 years.” 
Others, however, urged caution and wrote, “Not something to be proud of.” 
Another questioned the amount, saying, “$13 could barely feed that child for 2 days.” 
One user joked, “That’s a subscription fee.” 
Another commenter wrote: “Never underestimate the value of working together for the child’s sake.” 
I'm not the man but this news made me happier than him pic.twitter.com/XZs6btFFYP 
- King V ?? 
(@Ezedontmiss) July 16, 2026 
The Daily Dot could not independently verify the father’s claims. 
No court documents related to the case were publicly available to confirm the details described in the video. 
Child support orders typically use state-specific guidelines that can take into account each parent’s income, parenting time, childcare expenses, healthcare costs, and other financial obligations. 
Sign up to receive the Daily Dot’s Internet Insider newsletter for urgent news from the frontline of online. 
The post A Father Posted a $13.49 Child Support Check and Said His Ex Took Him to Court  the Internet Is Divided Over What the Story Actually Means appeared first on The Daily Dot . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 25.3%Sohini: 3.5%dailydot.com: 4.3%Confirmation Bias25.3%This article: 13.9%Sohini: 1.2%dailydot.com: 0.9%Anchoring Bias13.9%This article: 12.6%Sohini: 3.5%dailydot.com: 4.2%Availability Heuristic12.6%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.5%dailydot.com: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.8%dailydot.com: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 1.1%dailydot.com: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 22.0%Sohini: 4.8%dailydot.com: 4.9%Framing Effect22.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.4%dailydot.com: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.3%Sohini: 1.1%dailydot.com: 0.5%Status Quo Bias4.3%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.3%dailydot.com: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.4%Sohini: 1.1%dailydot.com: 1.2%Optimism Bias2.4%This article: 6.5%Sohini: 0.8%dailydot.com: 1.4%Pessimism Bias6.5%This article: 15.1%Sohini: 6.7%dailydot.com: 8.7%Negativity Bias15.1%This article: 19.3%Sohini: 1.0%dailydot.com: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias19.3%This article: 7.7%Sohini: 1.7%dailydot.com: 2.5%Fundamental Attribution Error7.7%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 1.8%dailydot.com: 1.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.7%dailydot.com: 1.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.4%Sohini: 3.5%dailydot.com: 2.4%Halo Effect2.4%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.2%dailydot.com: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.5%Sohini: 0.8%dailydot.com: 0.7%Recency Bias5.5%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.4%dailydot.com: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.2%dailydot.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 2.4%dailydot.com: 1.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.5%dailydot.com: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.3%Sohini: 2.6%dailydot.com: 1.9%Appeal to Authority4.3%This article: 7.7%Sohini: 1.9%dailydot.com: 2.2%False Dilemma7.7%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.3%dailydot.com: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 14.1%Sohini: 6.9%dailydot.com: 8.9%Hasty Generalization14.1%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.2%dailydot.com: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 1.8%dailydot.com: 2.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 15.3%Sohini: 5.9%dailydot.com: 7.1%Appeal to Emotion15.3%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.4%dailydot.com: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 11.5%Sohini: 2.0%dailydot.com: 1.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.5%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.4%dailydot.com: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 31.8%Sohini: 1.5%dailydot.com: 1.9%Burden of Proof31.8%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 32.9%Sohini: 7.6%dailydot.com: 7.4%Anecdotal32.9%This article: 4.5%Sohini: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.1%No True Scotsman4.5%This article: 13.4%Sohini: 1.9%dailydot.com: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)13.4%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.4%Sohini: 0.5%dailydot.com: 0.3%Middle Ground2.4%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.0%Sohini: 4.0%dailydot.com: 5.1%Unattributed Quote5.0%This article: 25.0%Sohini: 4.2%dailydot.com: 3.4%Quote-first Misdirection25.0%This article: 7.6%Sohini: 3.8%dailydot.com: 4.0%Biased Writer Voice7.6%This article: 3.8%Sohini: 1.1%dailydot.com: 1.6%Indoctrination3.8%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.4%dailydot.com: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sohini: 0.8%dailydot.com: 0.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 5.5%Sohini: 1.8%dailydot.com: 1.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…5.5%

581 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers17%attributed speech481writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageThe Daily Dot • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverage@a_train86n • 22 words • 100.0% coverage@a_train86n • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 100.0% coverageDaily Loud • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageThe Daily Dot • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageThe Daily Dot • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

@a_train86n

100%flagged-word coverage
48 attributed words48% of attributed speech93% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Quote-first Misdirection+20.3 ptsWriter: 25.6%@a_train86n: 45.8%45.8%Unattributed Quote-6.0 ptsWriter: 6.0%@a_train86n: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-5.6 ptsWriter: 5.6%@a_train86n: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-4.6 ptsWriter: 4.6%@a_train86n: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -2.9 ptsWriter: 2.9%@a_train86n: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.