Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Child Support Scam
MensNewsDaily.com ^ | April 24, 2004 | Roger F. Gay

Posted on 04/24/2004 8:58:58 AM PDT by RogerFGay

The Child Support Scam

April 24, 2004


by Roger F. Gay

Since the creation of the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement in 1975, government workers and lobbyists for private child support collection companies have been relentless in their efforts to misinform the public about child support payments and collections. A recent article published by WRAL.com in North Carolina provides a typical look at the propaganda effort.

The long title explains the impression that the article is intended to give: "Wake County Child-Support Workers Well-Intentioned But Overburdened; Child-Support Enforcement Needs Short-Changed By County Budget." Before going into detail, let me paraphrase the message; our accomplishments aren't impressive but we want more money anyway.

The background one needs to judge the message has never been presented to the public by the press (that I know of) outside of MensNewsDaily.com and FatherMag.com. Before the federal program was operational, about 70 percent of the amount of child support that was ordered was paid directly by noncustodial parents to custodial parents. An additional amount was paid to the government as reimbursement for welfare entitlements. According to research, divorced fathers (somewhat different for never-married fathers who are more often involved in welfare reimbursement and known to be different from noncustodial mothers) paid 90 percent of what was due, and fully-employed noncustodial fathers paid closer to 100 percent of what was due. Since the creation of the federal child support enforcement program which forces higher payments through expensive government payment systems, the figure previously at 70 percent has dropped to 67 percent. The primary reason for non-payment is that noncustodial parents are not able to pay as much as they have been ordered to pay. And some of the money that is currently paid gets lost in the new system.

The WRAL report begins with an overwhelming statement on the work load of case worker Lewis Jackson. "The Wake County Child Support employee is responsible for nearly 600 cases." What they don't say is that most payments are made voluntarily. No effort is required. When reminders and late notices are needed, they are automatically generated by computer and mailed without any effort being made by a case worker.

"Last year, Wake County collected more than $26 million in child support. Though that is a lot of cash, consider that more than 200,000 parents in the state owe more than $1 billion in payments." What they don't say is that the all payments made through the system, regardless of whether or not a parent has ever been late, are labeled "collections." $26 million in child support was paid in Wake County last year. What they also don't say is that it took more than a quarter century to accumulate the $1 billion arrearage figure. This is not, what might seem to be implied, the amount owed but not paid last year. Not subtracted from the figure are amounts paid off in subsequent years, in other states after parents have moved, settled through legal process, or that should be written off because noncustodial parents have long-since died, become disabled, or are otherwise unable to provide.

"According to Child Support managers, more staff is needed to deal with the problem. But that is not part of Wake County's budget proposal for the coming year." Given that there is no justification for the staff already on hand, and certainly none in an honest view of child support statistics, let's see how moved you are by the example.

"Beth Christo, whose ex-husband owes her nearly $20,000 for the support of their two children, said well-intentioned but overburdened case managers have given her the runaround for three years." "You go to Wake County, and they want to help you, but they just don't have the resources to do it," Christo said. "I have lost my car. I have moved my children twice. There are times when I don't know if I'm going to make it to pay day."

I don't know about you, but that makes me feel sad. What Beth apparently doesn't know is that most of the "collections" process simply involves waiting until a bloke can pay something. Sometimes payments are much more greatly delayed because threats connected to unreasonably high orders create psychological aversion to staying in contact with the system which in most cases is now the only legitimate point of payment. What to do? Let's look at the suggestion.

"Wake County Child Support Director Lillian Overton asked for 17 permanent positions in the next county budget. The request was denied by Wake County Human Services."

There is no word on why Beth's ex-husband is behind, but if he's typical, it's because he can't pay what has been ordered. Putting more workers on the government payroll won't help unless he's one of the people hired; perhaps providing the income he needs to make payments. I really have no personal knowledge regarding Beth's situation, but there are many noncustodial parents who can't make the payments they've been ordered to make. It is a fundamental consideration in setting child support amounts properly, that the amounts are based on what parents are able to provide. When circumstances change, such as loss of employment, timely adjustments need to be made to the amounts they are ordered to pay, so that uncollectable debts don't pile up – as they do now – giving the impression that more collection agents are needed. Custodial parents need to adjust their budgets and spending habits just like married couples and single adults would under similar circumstances. Just because a mother is divorced, doesn't guarantee a particular standard of living.

The lobbying effort is aimed at Wake County Manager David Cooke who presents budget requests to the county commission on May 17 subject to a final vote in mid-June. What should concern Wake County residents as well as people throughout the country, is the extent to which child support program employees misrepresent the status, benefit, and needs of their program. It is extremely unethical for government workers to mislead the public, and quite strange just that child support program employees are allowed to participate in lobbying activities as part of their official duties. Nothing lies within the ethical box except to accurately report as required. What really needs to be examined is whether program managers are violating ethical practice standards to such a degree that it is inappropriate to allow them to continue to hold positions of responsibility.

Roger F. Gay



Roger F. Gay is a professional analyst, international correspondent and regular contributor to MensNewsDaily.com, as well as a contributing editor for Fathering Magazine.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: North Carolina
KEYWORDS: cowardinsweden; deadbeatdad; scam
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-73 next last

1 posted on 04/24/2004 8:58:58 AM PDT by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TheSpottedOwl; saveliberty; Pikachu_Dad; steve-b; JudgemAll
ping
2 posted on 04/24/2004 9:01:45 AM PDT by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
bump
3 posted on 04/24/2004 9:03:16 AM PDT by moehoward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
It is a fundamental consideration in setting child support amounts properly, that the amounts are based on what parents are able to provide. When circumstances change, such as loss of employment, timely adjustments need to be made to the amounts they are ordered to pay, so that uncollectable debts don't pile up – as they do now – giving the impression that more collection agents are needed. Custodial parents need to adjust their budgets and spending habits just like married couples and single adults would under similar circumstances. Just because a mother is divorced, doesn't guarantee a particular standard of living.

It won't happen..............it is very rare the systems will adjust payments down when the support paying parent has a change in financial status.

I have no dog in this fight, I have just watched it happen to many people that I know.

4 posted on 04/24/2004 9:14:12 AM PDT by Gabz (Those people with no honor have no idea how to treat honorable people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
It won't happen..............it is very rare the systems will adjust payments down when the support paying parent has a change in financial status.

I know it's not being done. The point is that it should be. Sweden tried the US style reforms, and eventualy abandoned them because it overwhelmed their state collection system, and they didn't see good reason for it. The "backlash" from the experience is that Sweden now has presumptive joint custody and is revamping its welfare and what is effectively the equivalent of dependent tax credits so that everything is shared between mothers and fathers. Sweden Backs Off U.S.-Style Child Support Reforms: Government Investigation Reveals Fundamental Flaws
5 posted on 04/24/2004 9:18:51 AM PDT by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
If someone does not want the responsibility of children then don't have any sex. I'm amazed at people men AND women (because I know one or two who pay) who complain about child support.
6 posted on 04/24/2004 9:20:59 AM PDT by cyborg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
"If someone does not want the responsibility of children then don't have any sex."

People don't usually expect to end up divorced.

7 posted on 04/24/2004 9:26:39 AM PDT by paulsy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: paulsy
Even after people are divorced, children are still their responsibility.
8 posted on 04/24/2004 9:27:21 AM PDT by cyborg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
I agree, it should be done.

All the system here does is create more bureaucracies and government jobs...........but ignores the true victims of the system..........the children.

Because there are cases of both the custodial and/or non-custodial parent abusing the system, those that don't are the ones that suffer.
9 posted on 04/24/2004 9:29:02 AM PDT by Gabz (Those people with no honor have no idea how to treat honorable people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
While I understand your point, and agree in regard to unmarried people, it is just not always reality.

There are many times when divorce is actually in the best interest of the children of the marriage.

I also know both men and women that pay childl support, some complain others don't, but many of the complaints are legitimate.
10 posted on 04/24/2004 9:33:01 AM PDT by Gabz (Those people with no honor have no idea how to treat honorable people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
I'm just sorry for the children who have to watch parents break up,etc. It's sad. I wonder if there is some way to trim down the government system and make it more 'effective'. I've always found 'family court' odd but maybe necessary. Oh well.
11 posted on 04/24/2004 9:35:18 AM PDT by cyborg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
It's not the system that creates the bureaucracies and government jobs - it's the irresponsible parents who fail to take care of the children they've created. It's sad all the way around. The children always suffer. The custodial parent frequently suffers because they see their child doing without. Friends of the non-custodial parent suffer too. They have to listen to the rantings of the person who feels the payments are unfair.
12 posted on 04/24/2004 9:39:08 AM PDT by ladyjane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
It's very sad.

It's bad enough for what the kids go through during the break up......but for it to continue afterwards is in many cases the fault of the system and not the parents.

The vast majority of those paying support do want to support their children....it's the few deadbeats that have created the monster the system has become today which hurts the ones that are being responsible.
13 posted on 04/24/2004 9:39:14 AM PDT by Gabz (Those people with no honor have no idea how to treat honorable people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
Divorce is very bizarre. I am particularly upset at women who use the system to get back at men. Makes us girls look bad and guys don't want to get married again. But you're right... a lot of things go on in the family court that's more depressing than the actual divorce.
14 posted on 04/24/2004 9:41:48 AM PDT by cyborg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ladyjane
it's the irresponsible parents who fail to take care of the children they've created.

The problem is that those are actually a minority, and are causing the problems for the vast majority who do wish to take care of their children.

Because of the minority of the deadbeats there are now mandatory wage garnishes on all support paying parents in some states. And if for some reason they lose their jobs....their unemployment checks are garnished....for the same amount as when they had a job, even though we all know that unemployment is often no where near enough to cover basic necessities.

It's a vicious cycle.

15 posted on 04/24/2004 9:45:02 AM PDT by Gabz (Those people with no honor have no idea how to treat honorable people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
As horrible and corrupt as the child support system is, I think it should stay in place for one reason--to encourage men to use birth control.
16 posted on 04/24/2004 9:51:45 AM PDT by randog (Everything works great 'til the current flows.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
I know exactly what you mean. But it's not just women that abuse the system, I've seen men do it as well. But men don't generally get away with it as easily as the women do.

I know several men that even refuse to date because they got so badly burnt by the system.

I know one man in particular that decided he would try to get even with the system for abusing him after his divorce from one wife........by trying to abuse the system when getting divorced from the next wife....it back fired on him and he became a bit of a laughing stock in the rather close knit area he lived, because everyone knew about it.

I know the story, because I was the next wife!!!!! There were no children involved in my divorce, and so some 16 or so years later I can laugh about his pathetic attempt to get me to support him...............
17 posted on 04/24/2004 9:53:11 AM PDT by Gabz (Those people with no honor have no idea how to treat honorable people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
My brother went through some of this. The "mother" shacked up with guy who left his own wife, then sexually molested the 15-year old daughter. The "mother" is still with this creep. And he had to pay child support all through this sordid episode.
18 posted on 04/24/2004 10:01:47 AM PDT by ikka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
There generally are not a lot of timely adjustments either upward or downward.

I work for Child Support Enforcement, and I see a lot of cases where the noncustodial parents are still paying the amount ordered by the court 10, 12, 15 years ago. In fact, I advise noncustodial parents that, if they keep paying regularly, it is far more likely than not that they will not see an increase in their child support obligation. Nonpayers get priority over custodial parents seeking an increase. But if they stop paying, we will reset the child support based upon their current income. Which can be lower, but is usually higher.

19 posted on 04/24/2004 11:19:36 AM PDT by DeaconBenjamin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: randog
When in doubt, blame the man.

Women, of course, aren't responsible for their own birth control.
20 posted on 04/24/2004 12:59:53 PM PDT by clyde asbury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
And furthermore, the notion that if the Father loses his job he gets to put off child support is very counterproductive and dangerous. If you were the head of the household in an intact family you would do anything to make sure that family was taken care of. When you're not physically there doesn't give you the right to lay back and give up your responsibility. It isn't right. If you're making just enough to get by and pay your child support, and then you get laid off and get unemployment, (which would just enable you to get by,+) there'd be no incentive to work, would there? You'd be making the same amount to support yourself. Granted, support should be relative to how much the earner makes, not what the custodial parent needs or thinks they need. It's a touchy subject, but I don't think this is the right road to go down.
21 posted on 04/24/2004 1:08:15 PM PDT by Hildy (A kiss is the unborn child knocking at the door.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
I don't think it's the right road either. Oh well... I think people really need to take marriage more seriously and people should get better premarital counseling. It sounds simplistic yes, but something needs to be done before these problems start.
22 posted on 04/24/2004 1:18:35 PM PDT by cyborg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
Furthermore, if the wife is receiving child support, she should be required to show the court that it went to support the child.

The current system is heavily in favor of women, to put it mildly.
23 posted on 04/24/2004 1:23:44 PM PDT by clyde asbury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
tom leykis has been providing radio time on this issue.

i'll bet the rad feminists hate his guts!
24 posted on 04/24/2004 1:55:13 PM PDT by no_problema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay; hellinahandcart; Lil'freeper; big'ol_freeper
"Christo said. "I have lost my car. I have moved my children twice. There are times when I don't know if I'm going to make it to pay day."

Well Beth honey, it is a usual occurrence for me to not "know if I'm going to make it to pay day." I supposedly make "good money" too. Especially since the more than $1000/month that I am paying in "voluntary" child support (my wages are garnished for it even though I was never late with it) is not counted as "income" for the ex-wife. That $1000/month is after-tax income that I get to provide "voluntarily."

Also, there is no tax break for me for this other than the opportunity to claim one of my two children as a tax dependent.

Sorry, honey, I have NO sympathy for you.

Roger, thanks for doing what you do.

25 posted on 04/24/2004 2:58:24 PM PDT by sauropod ("How do you know he's a King?" "Because he doesn't have sh!t all over him.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
Methinks you need to walk a mile in my moccasins, Renee.
26 posted on 04/24/2004 3:00:25 PM PDT by sauropod ("How do you know he's a King?" "Because he doesn't have sh!t all over him.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ladyjane
"The custodial parent frequently suffers because they see their child doing without."

Neither my kids nor my ex are "doing without."

They have a much higher standard of living than I do.

27 posted on 04/24/2004 3:02:10 PM PDT by sauropod ("How do you know he's a King?" "Because he doesn't have sh!t all over him.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
You err in your thinking with all due respect.
28 posted on 04/24/2004 3:05:04 PM PDT by cyborg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
"And furthermore, the notion that if the Father loses his job he gets to put off child support is very counterproductive and dangerous. If you were the head of the household in an intact family you would do anything to make sure that family was taken care of. When you're not physically there doesn't give you the right to lay back and give up your responsibility. It isn't right. If you're making just enough to get by and pay your child support, and then you get laid off and get unemployment, (which would just enable you to get by,+) there'd be no incentive to work, would there? You'd be making the same amount to support yourself. Granted, support should be relative to how much the earner makes, not what the custodial parent needs or thinks they need. It's a touchy subject, but I don't think this is the right road to go down."

You are wrong. Child support has no basis in reality. At least not in my case.

29 posted on 04/24/2004 3:07:21 PM PDT by sauropod ("How do you know he's a King?" "Because he doesn't have sh!t all over him.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DeaconBenjamin
With all due respect, BS!

In Minnesota where I live, either parent can request a hearing to adjust the amount of child support every two years.

Both times that I have changed jobs my ex has promptly caused me to waste a vacation day sitting through a court hearing in which it was decided that I should pay more support.

It works in reverse also, though. When I quit a job I was fed up with and went to school for a couple years, my income, needless to say, decreased. I requested a hearing and the judge lowered my support to an amount I could afford to pay. But, as I mentioned before, my ex made sure it was adjusted right back up again (even higher) the very day that she was legally able.
30 posted on 04/24/2004 3:10:21 PM PDT by NorthWoody (Hey, politicians! Stand up, be men, do your jobs and close the borders while there's still time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
Really? I don't know any women that pay child support.
31 posted on 04/24/2004 3:10:45 PM PDT by SC Swamp Fox (Aim small, miss small.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
"Oh well... I think people really need to take marriage more seriously and people should get better premarital counseling."

Been there, done that, didn't help.

32 posted on 04/24/2004 3:35:42 PM PDT by sauropod ("How do you know he's a King?" "Because he doesn't have sh!t all over him.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
No ma'am. It is not me who is erring....
33 posted on 04/24/2004 3:36:21 PM PDT by sauropod ("How do you know he's a King?" "Because he doesn't have sh!t all over him.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
I'm talking about men who want the benefits of a warm place to put it but not taking care of the results (children). So exactly where am I erring in talking about men taking responsiblity?
34 posted on 04/24/2004 3:37:55 PM PDT by cyborg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
Here. From your post #6.

"I'm amazed at people men AND women (because I know one or two who pay) who complain about child support."

35 posted on 04/24/2004 3:40:13 PM PDT by sauropod ("How do you know he's a King?" "Because he doesn't have sh!t all over him.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
I agree with your post #34, btw.
36 posted on 04/24/2004 3:42:36 PM PDT by sauropod ("How do you know he's a King?" "Because he doesn't have sh!t all over him.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
Complain about paying...I meet too many people who DON'T want to take care of the children that they make. They rather push their kids on the government. They work jobs off the books,etc. and they don't give any money to take care of their children.
37 posted on 04/24/2004 3:43:42 PM PDT by cyborg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
Those are the people I'm talking about, not guys getting the shaft from the ex-wife :( I should have made that abundantly clear in the beginning.
38 posted on 04/24/2004 3:45:04 PM PDT by cyborg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: GWB and GOP Man
ping.
39 posted on 04/24/2004 3:47:28 PM PDT by floriduh voter (www.conservative-spirit.org/ GOP HELP TERRI or Constitution Party Here I Come)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: cyborg; RogerFGay
I'm ok with paying a reasonable amount that is based on reality, that is based on the real incomes and assets of the two people involved.

I am paying what is (IMO) an unreasonable amount. My ex's standard of living went way up. Mine went way down.

If you are male, the State assumes you to be a deadbeat dad. It doesn't matter what has been done previous to the State being involved. My wages were garnished even though there was no reason for them to be. That's my State law.

Also, to the poster that said that Child Support levels are not adjusted over the years and that it was wrong that they weren't, I would say that since they are so unreasonable in the first place, i have no sympathy for this view.

It would also help if the Special Master would look at the financial evidence before rendering a decision.

The Special Master in my case didn't do her job. My lawyer advised against appeal.

40 posted on 04/24/2004 3:50:52 PM PDT by sauropod ("How do you know he's a King?" "Because he doesn't have sh!t all over him.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
.


Cyborg,


Even after people are divorced, children are still their responsibility.

That goes without saying.


As a father paying child-support for four (4) teenaged kids (actually paying more than required by the courts, plus news computers, video camera, et al) ...

I continue to be amazed how Divorced-Women feel they have the God-Given right to effectively lock father out of the Parental Guidance Loop.

After fighting WW-III to install pornograpghy-filtering software (on the two computers "I" purchased) ... and then failing to get Report Card Grades & School Updates, I've basically given-up.

Their mother wants to be the "Children's Best Friend" -- NOT their disciplinarian (sp) and Academic Counselor.

Frankly, the tables are SO turned on American Men today.

Who will suffer in the Long Run ?

First, I'm sure my two Sons will wait decades before getting married, after seeing the nuclear baloney their Dad's been through.

Next, my two beautiful Daughters will find it difficult to find Men willing to make the "big committment".

Well ... I guess this is called Venting.

All I want to do is spend six-months in Iraq (that's the honest truth) ... to escape the emotional agony of having a mother poison her children against their dad.



Patton@Bastogne

Free Republic Member since 1998



.
41 posted on 04/24/2004 3:52:55 PM PDT by Patton@Bastogne (Nuclear Victory in 2006 over Iran & North Korea !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Patton@Bastogne; sauropod
***I can't blame this situation on one particular situation but liberal feminists don't care about the institution of marriage and men's feelings (or children for that matter). Patton your statements below pretty much summarize my concerns esp. as a single lady am running into men who don't want to committ thanks to nasty divorcing parents:

Who will suffer in the Long Run ?

First, I'm sure my two Sons will wait decades before getting married, after seeing the nuclear baloney their Dad's been through.

Next, my two beautiful Daughters will find it difficult to find Men willing to make the "big committment".

Well ... I guess this is called Venting.

All I want to do is spend six-months in Iraq (that's the honest truth) ... to escape the emotional agony of having a mother poison her children against their dad.
42 posted on 04/24/2004 4:01:24 PM PDT by cyborg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
Rates in Minnesota are 25% of net income for one child, 30% for two, 35% for three, 40% for four, and so on. I'm not sure where the cap is, or if there is one.

I'm only paying for one child, but IMO 25% is ridiculous. Show me one family that spends one dollar out of every four dollars earned on it's one child and I'll show you a family that's on the road to financial ruin.
43 posted on 04/24/2004 4:02:43 PM PDT by NorthWoody (Hey, politicians! Stand up, be men, do your jobs and close the borders while there's still time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: SC Swamp Fox
My brother's wife sure as heck doesn't. Of course, she doesn't give a damn about the kids anyway.
44 posted on 04/24/2004 4:03:23 PM PDT by stands2reason ( During the cola wars, France was occupied by Pepsi for six months.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
I'd like to put my two cents into this issue. I make my last child support payment, May 1st. I've been divorced almost 18 years. In California, the system is so screwed up you can't believe it. Neither of my kids spends more than 2-3 nights per month at Mommy dearests home. Yet, because of income disparity, I've had to pay her. She remarried and chose not to work outside of the home for the past 10 years. Yet, if I go back to Court and they look at her imputed income versus my real income, the judges get p.o.'d at me. Now that the kids are in college, have car issues etc. I pay that in addition to child-support payments for someone to sit home on their lazy butt all day. You're right, the system is broken. Keep in mind, the large payments that are ordered here in California is due to the fact California is awarded federal bucks based on how much child support is collected. I'm done venting now, thank you for reading.
45 posted on 04/24/2004 4:05:24 PM PDT by Phinanceguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DeaconBenjamin
In fact, I advise noncustodial parents that, if they keep paying regularly, it is far more likely than not that they will not see an increase in their child support obligation.

Your advice is good. My ex has not sought an increase in more than 10 years. My daughter is nearly 16 and I still pay the same amount. It's there on time every month.

She wants to move back to live with me for the last year of high school. She said, "I'm sorry that it'll be more expensive." When I told her how much I paid each month, she was astonished, saying, "I don't cost nearly that much each month."

46 posted on 04/24/2004 4:06:44 PM PDT by CholeraJoe (I'm just here to Mosh!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: NorthWoody
I would think that child support should be half of what is needed to support a child, considering the custodial parent should pay half as well. Is that not the standard is? What percentage of the childcare costs are the custodial parent's responsibility?
47 posted on 04/24/2004 4:08:51 PM PDT by stands2reason ( During the cola wars, France was occupied by Pepsi for six months.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason
In North Carolina, CS is defined as the amount necessary to keep the children in the same comfort level and lifestyle as was had when both parents were married....on paper its about %17 of your gross pay per child for custody arrangements where the non custodial spouse has the children less than 121 days per yer.


48 posted on 04/24/2004 4:13:09 PM PDT by Rebelbase ("Kerry is the female version of Hillary"............FReeper Paul Atreides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
First hand case in point. A Hispanic friend of mine (ex boyfriend) was married and had a son. The marriage went south and they divorced, and he started paying child support, (she had never lifted a finger to work her whole life). Shortly thereafter, like REAL shortly thereafter, she came up pregnant. Guess what? Turns out, it wasn't his kid. So he ends up supporting the ex-wife, his son AND the kid she had by another man, after they divorced. But that's not the worst part. To continue, about 2 years after that, his car tangled with an 18-wheeler driving home from Dallas one night. He says the truck didn't have it's lights on, or he would have SEEN the truck pulling out from a rest stop. But he could't prove it. To make matters worse, the company he worked for had committed fraud and instead of covering the employees health coverage, the owner disappeared with the 'premium money', leaving my friend in the hospital, with a life-threatening injury (they had to cut him out of the car with the jaws of life), and no insurance. They didn't think he would ever walk again, at first. He was in rehab for over a year but finally was able to walk again. Point is, during this time, child support services was hounding him for the child support payments, even knowing he was incapacitated. Their comment to him: "Doesn't matter. Unless you are DEAD, you have to pay up." His son is now 24 years old and he STILL has not been able to catch up on the CS payments + interest that they garnered his wages for, and then charged against his credit all these years. As an aside, the ex wife dumped his son on his doorstep one day, announced that she was moving to California with her boyfriend (the other kid's father) and basically, here he is. Having no money for legal action, he failed to file for permanent custody at that point. Big mistake. She returned 6 mos. later, yanked the kid out of school and resumed her 'pay me' routine. At this point, she should have had to pay HIM child support for that 6 months, but the courts just don't work that way. Fairly, that is.

This kind of thing happens all the time, from what I've learned. It's unfair and should be changed, radically.
In going after the fathers like this, the courts do more harm than good to the child, cause the father would have/should have been able to afford legal representation to get full custody. Instead, the kid was stuck with a sorry excuse for a mother that had abandoned him, and then yanked him out of school in the middle of the year, just so she could resume getting PAID.

49 posted on 04/24/2004 4:14:39 PM PDT by XenaLee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
If someone does not want the responsibility of children then don't have any sex.

I salute you for having ruined a perfectly good article about dishonest and probably counterproductive government bureaucrats, and turning it into the usual flaming pissing contest in which married men are told to keep it in their pants.

50 posted on 04/24/2004 4:42:23 PM PDT by Nick Danger (carpe ductum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-73 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson