The Child Support Scam

MensNewsDaily.com ^ | April 24, 2004 | Roger F. Gay

[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.

[cyborg]

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.

[clyde asbury]

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.

[no_problema]

tom leykis has been providing radio time on this issue.

i'll bet the rad feminists hate his guts!

[sauropod]

"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.

[sauropod]

Methinks you need to walk a mile in my moccasins, Renee.

[sauropod]

"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.

[cyborg]

You err in your thinking with all due respect.

[sauropod]

"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.

[NorthWoody]

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.

[SC Swamp Fox]

Really? I don't know any women that pay child support.

[sauropod]

"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.

[sauropod]

No ma'am. It is not me who is erring....

[cyborg]

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?

[sauropod]

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."

[sauropod]

I agree with your post #34, btw.

[cyborg]

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.

[cyborg]

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.

[floriduh voter]

ping.

[sauropod]

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.