child support

[masterorion]

Again, blame the dads of the past for the laws of today. I'm sorry, but I wish to hell they had these laws while I was raising Heather. It's about time is all I have to say.

Furthermore, if you're paying your support and doin' what you're supposed to be doin' as far as your child is concernced, then you also should be looking at it as the law is good for the children who aren't getting the support from their fathers.

does putting the father in jail get you your support? possibly. if the father is in jail, the state should be sending you a check. problem here is, even though you get paid from that situation, the father still isnt paying anything. so does this actually fix anything? not in all cases. it may in some because most people dont want jailtime. but in no means does this force someone to pay.

 

[masterorion]

well, i retract some of my statements. i forgot that for those people that go to court and the hearing board finds that the payer is not in contempt of court because there is the inability to pay, they do setup a probation type of thing where they help you search for a job(i think they help). if they dont help, your at least in the probation program that tells the state your trying to find employment instead of doing nothing.

 

[Kat]

Let's put it this way, with these laws in affect, I'll betcha a man who gets layed-off from one job will make sure he gets another, even it is McDonald's damn fast. Therefore, he will generate the revenue to pay for his child(ren).

Another example of what a shit Mitch used to be:

He was a union carpenter with a very very good job. He even got to do the trim work in the winter time so he very rarely got layed-off. Back in 1987 when we started goin' thru our divorce he made $21.00 p/h. Well just so he could get back at me, he told his boss that year to lay him off so therefore when we went to court the amount of income he would show would be his Unemployment Compensation. I also had to leave in the middle of the nite with just the clothes on mine and Heathers backs. He literally within a day got a storage unit and wiped the house clean.

I can also tell you horror stories of friends who have gone thru drama somewhat like mine. 9 times out of 10, the males in the marriage will walk out of the marriage, hide their assets, sell everything they have to a friend for $1, and on and on and on. How many do you know of, who quit college to help support their husbands thru their professions? So therefore, when I hear this crap Dad's who cannot pay, I call bullshit. There is no reason whatsoever why a man cannot pay his child support. Unless he's literally homeless, then he can pay.

 

[Noxxx]

This thread is the best form of birth control ever. They should really go over the reality of child support in sex ed classes. I know alot more teenage boys would pay alittle more attention of they went over the long term finacial costs of getting a gal knocked up.

I remember them talking about all of the horrible diseases, and the risk of pregnancy, but nobody ever mentioned that sex can lead to 20 years of finacial ruin.

 

[masterorion]

Let's put it this way, with these laws in affect, I'll betcha a man who gets layed-off from one job will make sure he gets another, even it is McDonald's damn fast. Therefore, he will generate the revenue to pay for his child(ren).

Another example of what a shit Mitch used to be:

He was a union carpenter with a very very good job. He even got to do the trim work in the winter time so he very rarely got layed-off. Back in 1987 when we started goin' thru our divorce he made $21.00 p/h. Well just so he could get back at me, he told his boss that year to lay him off so therefore when we went to court the amount of income he would show would be his Unemployment Compensation. I also had to leave in the middle of the nite with just the clothes on mine and Heathers backs. He literally within a day got a storage unit and wiped the house clean.

I can also tell you horror stories of friends who have gone thru drama somewhat like mine. 9 times out of 10, the males in the marriage will walk out of the marriage, hide their assets, sell everything they have to a friend for $1, and on and on and on. How many do you know of, who quit college to help support their husbands thru their professions? So therefore, when I hear this crap Dad's who cannot pay, I call bullshit. There is no reason whatsoever why a man cannot pay his child support. Unless he's literally homeless, then he can pay.

this is what ive been trying to get to. ive been saying it for quite a while now.
the state still doesnt care. if the person is literally homeless, guess what...jail time for j00. does it help the problem by putting the person in jail. no

Let's put it this way, with these laws in affect, I'll betcha a man who gets layed-off from one job will make sure he gets another, even it is McDonald's damn fast. Therefore, he will generate the revenue to pay for his child(ren).

not all places in the US have the ability to jump job to job. possibly where you or i live, they do. but as an example of what i mean, where i used to live is a very small town. drive 3 minutes through town and your on your long drive to another which is a good 30 miles away. there is no fast food place here or anything of the sort. many stores have gone under because of the wal mart that is in the next town 30 miles away. all other businesses are family owned and operated which typically means there is no employment needed like businesses of most rural areas. jobs are very very scarce in this town. so, if you lose your job in that town, you will be searching for a long time to get another one that you can get to without a vehicle. yes, bikes are a secondary option, but the winters that last like 7 of the 12 months of the year will prohibit the use of a bike. im not talking little snowstorms either. im talking about snowbanks that will cover 2-3 cars if they were stacked on top of each other.

 

[Kat]

<3 Eq. Very good point my friend^^. They should talk about the long term affects of what happens 'after'.

Master, if they are literally homeless, then jail is probably a good thing. At least they'll have a roof over their heads and 3 square meals per day.

I'm sorry, there is NO excuse. You help create your child, by God you can help support them.

 

[masterorion]

<3 Eq. Very good point my friend^^. They should talk about the long term affects of what happens 'after'.

Master, if they are literally homeless, then jail is probably a good thing. At least they'll have a roof over their heads and 3 square meals per day.

I'm sorry, there is NO excuse. You help create your child, by God you can help support them.

what ive been trying to say though is, why not help the ones that are having a problem paying. your out to burn the ones that arent paying for the simple fact they arent paying. some people do have legit issues. IE: someone that is literally homeless. yes, putting them in jail may be a good thing, but the person still is NOT paying out of his pocket. would it be more beneficial to all parties if there was a sort of help for people in this type of case so he/she could pay out of their own pocket? i would say yes

 

[masterorion]

and no, i dont mean help the ones that refuse to pay. that would be pointless. but the state can determine who can pay and who cannot from the hearing that is held at the end of the process. thats how they determine whether or not jail time is going to be issued.

 

[Kat]

And they do. They give you a probation period and help you get a position. What more do you want? My GOD they are practically holding their hand.

Honestly, I would think that since you are paying for your child, you would be taking the stance that other non-custodial parents should be paying for theirs.

All I have to say is I raised my child from the time she was 5-18 with a $45 per week child support payment. Please tell me what the hell that actually paid for besides her food? If the mother can do it, and it is a helluva lot more, then there is NO reason the father cannot. Or whoever has fulltime custody can do it, then the non-custodial person can do it.

The difference is you HAVE the child with you and you MUST provide for them. It all comes down to priorities. In other words, out of site, out of mind. The 'bill' when you don't have custody of the your child, becomes a back burner bill. It gets to the point where everything, ie. your rent, your food, your utilities, your repairs on your vehicles, the gas you put in your car become a priority over the child support. And I'm sorry, but I don't think there are too damn many homeless fathers out there. Personally I think they just have screwed up priorities.

 

[masterorion]

i take the stance of all parties when it comes to things. i look at my point of view as well as others. i do know what its like to have a hard time paying, but you know what? there isnt help for those that need it unless it comes down to the very end of the process. i dont take stances when it comes to debates. i know what its like to be on this end of the cs but i also understand that the custodial parent needs the support check. problem most times is that one side does not take into acct the other halfs point of view. your point of view is that you want support from the father. on this side of the CS issue, all of the repremand goes down on this end. so, lets say there is a deadbeat "payer", they will go to jail eventually. problem is, there is no repremand for the deadbeat "custodial parent"....you know, the ones that live off of the government and support.
also, you have to remember that when parents are split, there is NOT full time custody. in some if not most cases, there is fulltime custody. but when it comes to split families, the child care should be 50/50, not 0/100, or 10/90, etc. so, if its 50/50 care, what makes it right for only one side to input their money?

as far as the probation goes..now, this situation is hard to grasp unless you have been, are in danger of being, or it is possible that the situation may be upon you if do not pay for any reason (voluntarily or involuntarily do not pay). do i see this as being held by the hand. no. this is a way to help not only the payer, but also the custodial to get them back on track. putting a person in jail is not going to help. end of story. you will actually be paying part of your own support due to the way taxes work since you pay for government things such as jails.

do not forget though that there are no bills. CS is setup by direct withdrawal from paychecks. as long as a person is employed, cs is paid. since this is not a perfect world, people cannot always hold a job and there is typically downtime between jobs. depending on the downtime, you may not be able to pay anythign let alone support.

as far as your case goes, i dont know how long ago that was, but the amount paid is determined by the state on how much your wage is. if your getting paid 45 bucks a week, then thats on you to have that looked into.

 

[Pompidou]

Ideally, child support should be proportional to visitation rights. Women who deny any visitation at all shouldn't expect any money at all. Conversely, no man should expect to have only the fun part of parenting (the visiting) w/o the burden (the cash). It's a two part deal, I think. Both the money and the visiting are equally important.

 

[masterorion]

its a shame that it couldnt work like that.
its also a shame that the time that the child gets with each parent isnt identical or near identical. if it were so, then child support could be paid by both parties directly or indirectly during their own time of visitation. to clarify what im saying...if one parent has the child for 2 months, then the other parent has the child for the next 2, neither one or the other would be geting the whole amount of support. why would a parent have to pay child support if the child is in their custody? they wouldnt. the parent that does not have the child at the time would be responsible to pay. this way, it is cut down the middle and both parents pay equally.
its too bad taht things, regardless of what they are, are ever equal

 

[Kat]

Master, I'm gonna answer the above and then I need to get to bed. So anything further addressed will have to be debated later. Anyway ...

As I said earlier, Heather's father pulled some very underhanded things on me. I thank God I had a good job at the time we were goin' thru our divorce and was able to raise Heather on my income for 5 years before Steve and I got married, because let me tell you, it was very rare and far between I got that measley $45 per week. As I've already stated, back in 1987 Mitch made $21.00 per hour. I was entitled to 252.00 per week. That's 30% of what his gross income was. Well he worked it out with his boss and had him lay him off so when it came time to go to court all he had to show was an Unemployment Check.

Furthermore, how you ex-wife gets her income is really none of your business. That is the bottom line. As long as she is using the child support to pay for your sons needs and he is being provided for, that is your only concern. You are not there to provide for the child yourself with your time 24/7 like she is. Furthermore, I will just about guarantee you that she is paying a lot more per week for your baby then what you are sending her. Also, if she doesn't have the skills to get a good position, it's probably best she does live on the state for now, I'm not saying forever, but childcare is very very costly.

As far as the 50/50 situation goes, that is too hard on the child. To be with one parent for 3 days a week and the other for 4 days or whatever is very hard on a child. Especially once they start school.

As far as a person losing their DL. Well so be it. That's your first reprimand. If you lose your DL, then that should be your wake up call to shit or get off the pot. You cannot tell me you don't have friends or something that you can depend on once in a while to take you job hunting. There are temporary employment services over the United States. Again, I'm calling bullshit. If you lose your DL from not paying support then you need to shit or get off the pot, quit feeling sorry for yourself, and pound the sidewalk doin' whatever you need to do to get work so you can get that child support caught up and get your DL back. Also, when you are layed off a job, you get to claim your child and therefore you get more money on Unemployment. Therefore that money should go to the child.

As far as child support being set up by direct withdrawal I understand that, that is why I said 'bill'. You STILL need to count it as a bill if you lose your position in a company. Hence why I said, your rent, utilities, yada yada come before the child support and it gets to be a back burner 'bill'. Thing is, the child still needs to eat don't they? And shouldn't they eat even before you? If you have to live on 7 cans of soup per week so they can have their proper nutrition, then you do it. If you have to go without eating for a day, then you do it for your child. If you have to move and get a less expensive apt. or even a friggin room in a boarding house to make ends meet and get somewhere closer to employment then you do it.

And now my trump card ...

My daughter got pregnant at 15 years old, went to school full time and worked a job at, guess what ... McDonald's ... to support Michael. She did NOT get food stamps or state aid because she lived at home and we made too much money. Therefore, she worked her ass off for her child. I'm sorry, there is NO excuse for not paying for your child. NONE!!! You will never change my mind on that.

If you cannot pay your child support, then you need to lose whatever it takes to make you wake up and get a reality check. The child always comes first. If you cannot pay your support, then you cannot pay for your own living and need to go to jail or whatever happens.

 

[masterorion]

like ive said over and over and over. yes, child support should be paid.
please remember, i do have a DL. i do not have a car. therefore, i ride a bike because a car cannot be afforded when all living costs and CS is added together. and no, i dont have friends here to rely on. you may call bullshit on that too, but im not lying. i have 2 friends here. but i will not call them to have them take time out of their schedule to do something for me. both of which work during the daytime hours and both do schooling as well. the rest of the people here are mostly aquaintences. i wouldnt really call them friends yet.

You are not there to provide for the child yourself with your time 24/7 like she is.

the custodial parent shouldnt have 24/7 custody. this is where your example are a little flawed. your examples are based off of your personal experience. if my ex has my son 24/7, that means custody is not split correctly. in that case, why should someone have to pay? just because the mother says so? no.

As far as the 50/50 situation goes, that is too hard on the child. To be with one parent for 3 days a week and the other for 4 days or whatever is very hard on a child. Especially once they start school.

if visitation is not balanced, the mother is being unfair with the child. mothers complain about having to take care of the child, feed it, support it....well, let some burden be put on the other half then.(other than monetary) if you dont wanna do that, dont complain about having it so hard because you gotta care for a kid more than a father does.

Furthermore, how you ex-wife gets her income is really none of your business. That is the bottom line. As long as she is using the child support to pay for your sons needs and he is being provided for, that is your only concern. You are not there to provide for the child yourself with your time 24/7 like she is. Furthermore, I will just about guarantee you that she is paying a lot more per week for your baby then what you are sending her. Also, if she doesn't have the skills to get a good position, it's probably best she does live on the state for now, I'm not saying forever, but childcare is very very costly.

so, if i go on welfare, its ok for me to use government funding to pay for it? the priorities in that statement are a little off. its no different than those people that mooch off of welfare. besides, shes got 2 degrees and is perfectly trained for any job. and childcare can be done by myself. but we already know why i dont do the childcare.

AND.......

If you cannot pay your child support, then you need to lose whatever it takes to make you wake up and get a reality check. The child always comes first. If you cannot pay your support, then you cannot pay for your own living and need to go to jail or whatever happens.

thats correct. but have you stopped to realize that if someone stopped paying something to pay child support first, what the outcome could be? ill give you perspective. about another 100bucks less that i have incoming, i would have to cut my housing to pay the support. sooooo, when you say you didnt know too many homeless fathers, well, im 100 bucks close to being one of those homeless fathers. so hmm, which bill to cut? i could cut electric, i could cut the internet...but a little more info for you as to why i cant cut those is, part of my income derives from internet use. so, to cut power/internet, thats just making it that much worse.

if the mother doesnt want to make child availability even, i think they should change the amount paid to concur with that. but thats my opinion. people say that if you dont pay your support, you deserve teh consequences. i say that if mothers dont give equal visitation, they deserve the consequences.

i do, do what i can to pay for what i love and what i take responsibility for, but the world is not as peachy keen as it is thought to be all the time. there COULD be situations that will make it hard. paying nothing is wrong. most people can at least pay some. after all, some is better than none.

 

[Firestreak]

It seems like there are extreme cases on either side of this and the law should be somewhere inbetween.

 

[Mirewen]

this should be under the general topic, but eventually, this will end up here anyhow.

i have a child and am divorced. i understand child support and the reasoning behind it. problem i have with it is, its out to get people if you voluntarily decide not to pay or involuntarily decide not to pay.

for those that dont know how child support works, ill give some background.

child support is automatically deducted from pay from the non custodial guardian and is sent to the state where the state then sends it to the custodial guardian.

now, if you dont pay for whatever reason, what happens is a set of different steps.

first they will take your drivers license
next, they will take your bank acct and garnish wages
next, they hold a court hearing to find out why you havent paid
if there is a legit reason why you havent paid such as unable to get a job for whatever reason, they have the ability to set u up in a job program to help you find one that suits you. they also have an ability to put you in jail if the courts find you in contempt. IE: you have the ability to pay, but you dont.

now, they cant sentance you immediately to jail unless the court hearing is by a judge. they are typically overseen by someone else other than a judge.

heres why my beef comes in with this setup they have. they are logical reasons to get what they need from the non payer, however, it can be debated if they are good reasons.

now, these are going to be depend on what the persons situation is....so be mindful of that. i will give both sides

if they take your DL, you cant drive legally. which is a small roadblock in getting to work. or using a vehicle to find a job if thats what the case is. for some people, they may live in the sticks(boondocks) and without a vehicle, will make it very hard to get to or to get employment.

garnishing wages/taking bank accts. ... i have no real issue with this. this is a way for the state to ensure they get the money IF the person actually has the money but they decide they dont want to pay.

court hearing/jail...this is the one i have an issue with. if you had no job and very little jobs to choose from, (and by this time in the process, you dont have a dl to get to a job) you have a good chance of getting screwed over no matter what the courts decision is. if they decide to put you in a probation period to help you get a job to pay support, you have no way to get to interviews, to the probation meeting, etc.
now, if they toss you in jail, you arent gonna be able to pay your support after that either. so, whats the point? "you arent paying, so were gonna toss you in jail so you still wont be able to pay"

well, the courts will say that while in jail, you will work off the money you owe from the state. another problem is, if the process of paying is from the payer, to the state, to the caretaker. no one is still getting paid. basically, you are not generating revenue for the state, instead the state pays out of their pocket and essentially loses money by paying the caretaker what you owed.



discuss.!!!

My 2 sisters and I were raised by our single father after our mom ditched us. She didn't have to pay child support because she's a woman. She's a Justice of the Peace now... and one of the things she handles now is child support issues and custody battles. Ironic isn't it?

 

[Kiere]

for kiere, they actually accept the fact that he gives you a check directly?
or have you not had a court order for child support?

here in florida, if a person gives the custodial parent a check for x amount of dollars(we will say the amount of the support), its considered a gift and isnt counted toward support. the only way its counted is if it goes to the state then from the state, a check is cut to the parent.

No...we have a court order. It is a part of our divorce decree. If he were to stop paying I would have the option of going before the district attorney and changing it so that he would have to send payments through them. Neither of us wants that.

You just have to go with the flow and deal with it the best you can until your child is 18. The bottom line is, being a figure in your childs life and helping to provide for your baby, no matter what you have to endure with the "ex" while said child is growing up. And let me tell ya, as I'm sure Kiere probably can also and any other "exes" reading this thread, it's not always easy. You just have to keep thinking and mebbe even saying out loud to yourself, I love my child, and whatever I put up with and whatever grief I go thru, it's for them.

Absolutely Kat!

Master you keep talking about what it the man loses his job. Well what if the mother loses her job? We do not have the luxury of saying "can't find a job, got no car" the child has to be fed...clolthed and have adequate shelter. Before my divorce was final my piece of shit van broke down one day. I had very little extra money as I'd had to rent a place including first and last and like Kat I left with just about nothing...so had to buy basic furnishings for our new home. I called my ex because I didn't know what to do and he basically told me it was my problem. God Bless my ex father in law who was sitting there with him and called me back asking where I was. He came and helped me. I had to claim bankruptcy a few years back because in order for me to support my children I'd gotten way over my head in debt (thank god grocery stores take VISA now). While my ex is hiding income.

I will admit there are deadbeats...male and female...custodial and non-custodial. But I'm with Kat...unfortunately there are a large number of parents out there who would rather spit in their exes face than support their own child so the laws HAVE to be there.

 

[resipsa]

If you aren't fully prepared to support your child till age 18, you never should have been fucking in the first place. Next time, tell her to get an abortion.

Both parents have the choice to abstain from sex. Why is it that has to be the last choice the father gets to make?

Most fathers are happy to pay their child support if they are allowed to have a meaningful relationship with their children. Unfortunately, many, if not most mothers do all they can to restrict his contact to an absolute minimum once the relationship ends.

Isn't there a case about a guy who was told by his GF that she couldn't have babies and she ended up getting pregnant, so now he's refusing to pay child support? I saw it on CNN in the clinic, but I was all drugged up so I couldn't tell what the honky's were arguing about.

It's happening in the 9th Federal Circuit. I'm certain they don't expect to win. This case is a prelude to the next round - within 2 years you will see a father going to the US Supreme Court asking to block his ex from aborting his child. I can't wait for that round.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/08/fatherhood.suit.ap/

 

[Firestreak]

I don't really have solid conclusions on any of these issues, but I do realize when I see a strange sort of double standard. I want to analyze the rights of abortion to those of the rights of fathers.

With abortion you can take a few stands. If you take the stand that many women have on this thread, that you made the choice to have sex and therefore it's your responsibility then to provide for your child, and what's best for the child is all that matters, then why would you take the stand that it's alright for women to have an abortion(not including cases like rape and serious health risks)?

Obviously it's not in the best interests of the child to be aborted.

On that vein, if the child has no rights pre-birth, why is it that the mother can decide if the kid has an abortion but the father has no say in that matter? The law basically says the father has a choice until he has sex, the mother has a choice forever.

If the mother is unwilling to accept the responsibility of parenthood she is able to have abortion or put the kid up for adoption. I don't see how someone can take the stance that the father's rights are all forfeit because of the needs of the child, but at the same time argue that the mother has no legal responsibility whatsoever. She can abort it, put it for adoption, give it to the father or keep it and has no legal obligation to support it. The law of the land is it's his financial obligation ultimately.

Now, if you take the stance that abortion should be illegal, the rights of the child are ultimate, and therefore a father should be unable to abandon any financial obligations, then that's at least consistant. The law is then, you had the sex, she got knocked up, and now the rights of the kids outweighs the rights of the parents.

How can you seperate the two issues and say a woman should be able to abort the child and at the same time a man has no way out of his obligation?

There is no way those issues are disconnected.

Which is right and which is wrong? I don't really know. But the law should in some way incorporate a father's wants during the pregnancy to the father's obligation during the child's birth. For example if he prefers adoption and abortion he should be entitled to the same rights as the mother. If the father doesn't have any rights because he gave those up by having sex, why does the mother get them?

 

[masterorion]

I will admit there are deadbeats...male and female...custodial and non-custodial. But I'm with Kat...unfortunately there are a large number of parents out there who would rather spit in their exes face than support their own child so the laws HAVE to be there.

yes, and both the one that would love to spit in the others face, could go in both directions. the woman has the ability to restrict the father from his rights from the child and to take the money he makes. however, taking the money is his obligation, but the obligation is always one sided in these cases. visitation isnt required to be certain amount or days/hours, etc. if a father sees the kid once a month, thats all thats all that seems to be required.