Replies

I suggest confining your outrage to real injustices (e.g. men stuck with child support payments after DNA proof that the kid ain't his).

I have no doubt that men who are forced to support children that aren't theirs is a real injustice, but I don't much care for playing the relative injustice game. It's not like God says I can only recognize one injustice on a list at a time. As the article says, the guy didn't owe $21,500 in child support. It's an arbitrary amount that has no realistic connection to his obligation to support. The government does not therefore, have any (fundamental) legitimate authority to collect it. And in the two wrongs don't make a right category, it's not legal for them to force the guy to borrow in order to pay -- payments are supposed to be tailored to what he can afford (but they're not).

Re: the idea that the guy had no business paying $21K for a car when he "owed" an arbitrary debt imposed on him by government -- that's not really like a new Mazaratti or anything; and there are enough payment plan options, that it might well have been an intelligent economic decision. Cheap cars are sometimes so expensive to maintain, that getting something reliable that will last longer than the payment plan is the best thing for most people.

I hesitate to respond since I am one of those "pinheads" in child support, but I would like to offer some alternative answers.

First of all, NO child ever benefits from divorce, ever. The standard of living almost always goes down, no matter what the level of support flowing from the non-custodial parent. Attempts have been made over the years to lessen the impact by using different formulas to determine support. Is it always fair? NO, but until we can come up with something better, that's what we have.

Secondly, it has been my experience, in over 25 years as a pinhead, that emotion rules over logic and judgment. Whatever the baggage is between the parents, it prevents them from acting in the interest of the children. The parents use the children as leverage with each other. This delays the final resolution in many cases, consequently the non-custodial parent has an instant arrearage back to the date of the filing.

Thirdly, I always explain to the parties that FULL disclosure and ongoing cooperation will generally result in support orders that are reasonable, if not always acceptable. Failure to disclose income and assets, or failing to cooperate with the court can, and usually does, result in "default" judgments that are based on what the custodial parent, the child support agency, or the court determines to be "potential earnings or ability to earn" which will most likely be excessive. I am still amazed at how many individuals simply fail to cooperate or even appear in court. The old saying, "hoisted on his own petard" comes to mind.

I have seen abuses from all sides over the years. From a personal point of view, I can relate to the arguments from both sides, but the laws are designed to protect the interest of the children as much as possible. I advocate that support laws be flexible and allow for alternative kinds of support, trust funds, in-kind payments, shared custody, etc. Perhaps you whiners should seek to have the laws changed to allow for more individualized adjudication, rather than blame the system itself.

For the record please note my tagline. I am a conservative and proud Republican - as difficult as that may be to believe, but if government walked away from this responsibility I can assure you that you would not like the consequence. Whether we want to admit it or not, there are a lot of individuals who would simply walk away from the responsibility of supporting their children. I see it every day. If not for me, and others like me, the welfare rolls would be a lot bigger.

It is hard to determine what the actual circumstances are regarding the $21,500 loan, but if the child support agency took it all, he would have owed at least that much in past due support. I suspect there is a LOT MORE to the story. It comes down to a matter of priority. I believe you support your children first even if you have to sacrifice to do it. Should he pay for his vehicle on the backs of his children?