child support

well you know, if you just pay the damn money none of this would happen. All the punishments you get for not paying dont have to be reasonable b/c not paying in the first place is just stupid. Its your responsibility so you cant blame them for being irrational.
 
The dude does pay child support.

The point he's saying is how he could sympathize with the situation of a guy who is unable to pay, and how the system would work to screw him over.

Custody of the kid becomes a bullet proof shield. The mother(not always) who has custody can do no wrong now in the states eyes. If she doesn't earn enough to support her child, then the state will pay her out of everyone's taxes.

If the guy without custody can't earn enough, then he's jailed, and the state makes us all pay... out of taxes.

This works amazing well for nailing deadbeat dads who are helping with neglected mothers which accounts a majority of these cases.

The problem is when it's not that the father won't pay but can't pay. The problem is when the mother is lazy and neglectful. The system sets mostly fair but sometimes unjust punishment on the father who isn't the primary caregiver(usually) - but simultaneously has no standards whatsoever on the mother for "the best of the child."

Because apparently it's the best of the child that his mom is living off welfare and his child support money, as opposed to living with a parent who is working, making money and then STILL getting money from his other parent.

If you want to say the other parent has to make so much money to send to the kid, why not make the mother match it? And why not make welfare system curbside these bitches so they can stop abusing a system made to help people in emergencies and using it to LIVE OFF OF.

Kick them off welfare, if they can't support the kid, give it to the other parent. Then if they don't get a job to send checks to that other parent, throw the bitch in jail! If he can get a job, no questions asked, so can she.

Welfare moms are a drain on the economy. They're parasites. And who's paying the welfare? The people who choose to work. Kat when you were out there working 2 jobs to get your daughter braces, this welfare mom was sitting at home, living off the taxes YOU paid, because the system allows such abuses. This is not an attack on you, it's an attack on then.
 
Just want to point out, not saying there's anything wrong with all, if not most moms who recieve welfare. I'm talking about a small percentage who take advantage of the system and don't attempt to find a job. It strains the system and sheds a bad light on many INNOCENT women. That's why reform is needed to seperate the two.
 
I didn't care to read alot posted on here, but isn't there a thing going around now, where men are bitching that if a women has a right to kill a baby (abortion) because she is not fit for taking the responsibility, then why can't a man have the right to not pay for one if they aren't fit for doing so?

Most people will say, then the guy shouldn't knock up the women. And people counter that women shouldn't let the guy knock her up.

P.S. if we never passed the 19th amendment when we did, we wouldn't be in this situation. (j/k)
 
I didn't have the patience to read all 11 pages, but I can say that State and Federal Government are completely screwed in the head. Not only do they have this money trap with child support, but also with probation.

If you can't pay restitution on time when your on probation, they put you in jail.... How the hell are you suppossed to pay them anything when everytime you can't pay they lock you up. You lose your job, your house, your car, and god knows what else, then they stick you back out into soceity, and say " Now don't be late on your next payment, or you going back for twice as long."

Yes, I understand that if you are law abidding citizen you won't have to worry about it, but what about the people that just screw up once, and spend the rest of their lives paying for it?

The Government no longer looks at it's citizens are people, merely social security numbers. They have no heart, and couldn't care less about one individuals situation.

I pay child support, and dread the day that I can't make a payment due to my car breaking down, or being layed off.

Once your in the system, they have you in a hang noose, and are just waiting to pull the level that sends you into a down ward spiral to which best case scenerio, you snap your neck, and get it over with.
 
Wow, this is the first time Ive seen a thread that brough an actual physical reaction in me. Sooo some people are stating that child support is not owed to a mother who has custody of the child?

Wow, hmm where to begin.........

I am 28 years old, had my daughter at 18. Daughter father grade A looser. Never ever pursued child support due to the fact that I wanted him to have NO part in her life. He happily obliged. Now I struggled to make ends meet, to make sure my daughter had a good life. I lived with my parents until I met my husband and got married. I swallowed my pride and didnt accept what I needed to raise my child.

Key points, You lay in bed with me, you make that choice. From the day that child is born, you HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY!

Now, dont get me wrong, Ive seen women cash their child support checks and run off to the hair salon to get thier "Hair Did" and there does need to be a more effective way to route the money to the child. But dont you dare say you dont have an obligation to pay. That check every week could have meant the difference between being on my own with my daughter or living with parents.

I made the choice to have my child, and it was the best damned decision of my life! And I would never change a thing.

Thankgod for the real men that accept their responsibility and take care of their children, their step children, and godchildren.
 
Geneviene said:
Sooo some people are stating that child support is not owed to a mother who has custody of the child?

No one said that. I didn't read beyond that because you obviously didn't read the thread.
 
Geneviene said:
Wow, this is the first time Ive seen a thread that brough an actual physical reaction in me. Sooo some people are stating that child support is not owed to a mother who has custody of the child?

Wow, hmm where to begin.........

I am 28 years old, had my daughter at 18. Daughter father grade A looser. Never ever pursued child support due to the fact that I wanted him to have NO part in her life. He happily obliged. Now I struggled to make ends meet, to make sure my daughter had a good life. I lived with my parents until I met my husband and got married. I swallowed my pride and didnt accept what I needed to raise my child.

Key points, You lay in bed with me, you make that choice. From the day that child is born, you HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY!

Now, dont get me wrong, Ive seen women cash their child support checks and run off to the hair salon to get thier "Hair Did" and there does need to be a more effective way to route the money to the child. But dont you dare say you dont have an obligation to pay. That check every week could have meant the difference between being on my own with my daughter or living with parents.

I made the choice to have my child, and it was the best damned decision of my life! And I would never change a thing.

Thankgod for the real men that accept their responsibility and take care of their children, their step children, and godchildren.

The people on this thread are only complaining about women who get child support, welfare and don't attempt to find a job and live off of it, not at all about if it should be paid or not. As well to a point the problems with the enforcement rules, that either don't catch deadbeats of both genders or are illogical by being inflexable to a person facing a cash shortage and damaging to their ability to actually pay.
 
Firestreak said:
The people on this thread are only complaining about women who get child support, welfare and don't attempt to find a job and live off of it, not at all about if it should be paid or not. As well to a point the problems with the enforcement rules, that either don't catch deadbeats of both genders or are illogical by being inflexable to a person facing a cash shortage and damaging to their ability to actually pay.

Again, the bullshit with the enforcement rules being inflexible. Gimme a break you guys. When you are the custodial parent there is no excuse for an ability to pay. The CHILD still has to eat. Wake up!!! Why the hell should the non-custodial parent have a break just because they lose their job? The custodial parent doesn't get that option. They have the child there 24/7 and said child still need to eat, go to the doctor, be taken care of if they get sick, need things for school, etc.

There is NO reason a parent, whether they have the child full-time or not, non-custodial or custodial cannot find SOME way to help support their child. IF it goes to the extreem that they lose have to end up in jail, so be it. They had ample time (at least 6 months, let me tell ya) before the courts would literally throw them in jail.

GIMME A BREAK!!!
 
One more thing, Aerandir, when you do screw up and end up paying for you 'sins', get put on probation, have to pay restitution, have to do community service, yada yada, you also have ample time (at LEAST 1 year) before you need to pay restitution. Again, no excuse. Again, you put it on the backburner and then when it comes to pay you cry if you didn't take care of it. But that really doesn't belong in this thread, so I digress.

How do I know about these things? My brother in law just got done goin' thru this whole thing because he was majorly busted with a felony charge and conviction. He did what he was supposed to do because he screwed up and got caught. If there are any others out there, who feel the system is screwing you over, then I suggest you just buck up and take care of your crap. You did the deed, you got caught, you need to pay the piper.
 
Actually, because he took care of his crap, it wasn't a conviction. He got probation, did what he had to do, and now it will never show on his record. Need to clarify that part.
 
Kat said:
One more thing, Aerandir, when you do screw up and end up paying for you 'sins', get put on probation, have to pay restitution, have to do community service, yada yada, you also have ample time (at LEAST 1 year) before you need to pay restitution. Again, no excuse. Again, you put it on the backburner and then when it comes to pay you cry if you didn't take care of it. But that really doesn't belong in this thread, so I digress.

How do I know about these things? My brother in law just got done goin' thru this whole thing because he was majorly busted with a felony charge and conviction. He did what he was supposed to do because he screwed up and got caught. If there are any others out there, who feel the system is screwing you over, then I suggest you just buck up and take care of your crap. You did the deed, you got caught, you need to pay the piper.

I'm sure it is different in every case, or maybe it is state specific, but I had to start paying my restitution in payment each month, along with a $40 dollar probation fee. I guess to pay the guy's salary that says "pee in this".

All I'm saying is if you don't oblige by child support, resititution, etc.. by the tee, the government makes it ten times harder on you to do so in the future. No matter how many different ways it is explained to me, it still doesn't make sense. " You owe us money, so we are going to take away every means you have to make it becuase you missed a payment". There has to be a better way.
 
Kat said:
Again, the bullshit with the enforcement rules being inflexible. Gimme a break you guys. When you are the custodial parent there is no excuse for an ability to pay. The CHILD still has to eat. Wake up!!! Why the hell should the non-custodial parent have a break just because they lose their job? The custodial parent doesn't get that option. They have the child there 24/7 and said child still need to eat, go to the doctor, be taken care of if they get sick, need things for school, etc.

There is NO reason a parent, whether they have the child full-time or not, non-custodial or custodial cannot find SOME way to help support their child. IF it goes to the extreem that they lose have to end up in jail, so be it. They had ample time (at least 6 months, let me tell ya) before the courts would literally throw them in jail.

GIMME A BREAK!!!

The custodial parent does get a break. Instead of switching custody of the child to the parent working enough to be able to feed it, the state will support the parent who isn't working. Either way, the child isn't going to starve, it's just a question of if parents should be able to use their kids as shields like that.

If you think an attack on this system is an attack on you and your situation, dead wrong. You worked! And because of people who refused to, you had to work that much harder to support them as well with your taxes.
 
Being an ex-child support child... well, I must say I'm thankful for the system. My dad was of the deadbeat variety, hoarding money in many places, with different women, and at one point he had 6 social security numbers. My mother worked (and still does) extremely hard to keep herself, me and my younger brother out of welfare. Thankfully, we never had to use it.. but we couldn't afford health insurance, or a car when my brother and I were old enough, or any fancy stuff. We moved a couple times, downsizing as much as possible to save money. We never starved, but if my father had just paid *any* of what he was supposed to, when I was very sick and in and out of hospitals for over a year, well...the strain would have been lessened greatly. My mother had been a housewife when my parents were married, and in fact had never graduated high school. She made it work, and as is her nature to be too kind, settled for a lump sum from my father just to get *anything*. She is the most amazing woman I have ever met.

My father just didn't care. He could have supported us, he just didn't want to. I sympathize with those that are incapable of providing the proper support. My advice, find a good divorce attorney that can help you with your needs. Many work pro bono. I know... my father almost got out of ever paying a cent. The government isn't heartless, but you're correct, the system isn't tailored to fit everyone's situation. I don't know that it can be.
 
Well.... I just spent a kazillion hours going through and reading this whole topic.

Mast I am sorry you are having such a hard time, but I am even sadder there is a child sitting in the middle of it. Kat and the others are right though what your previous partner does in terms of work or not really has nothing to do with you. Your only concern is your child. Is it at all possible to attempt to establish where all the angst came between you both so that somehow the differences can be put aside for the sake of your child if nothing else? Usually it takes one of you to be the better person.

Child support systems are fundamentally flawed in all countries even mine ( Australia- though ours at least seems based on the ability to pay. From memory a base subsistance rate is subtracted from the gross income before any deductions are calculated... rates are also subtracted for any children that the payee is caring for and supporting) and are rarely a fair and equitable system ...

I receive a child support payment of 21.60 per month, which is a joke and I laugh my ass off everytime that check comes in. However I will say this, If I was earning 100k plus per annum I'd still take that token cheque.


Firestreak I don't know whether you just irk me everytime you open your mouth to make a comment but give a little thought to the comments you make.


Firestreak said:
Custody of the kid becomes a bullet proof shield. The mother(not always) who has custody can do no wrong now in the states eyes. If she doesn't earn enough to support her child, then the state will pay her out of everyone's taxes.

The problem is when the mother is lazy and neglectful. The system sets mostly fair but sometimes unjust punishment on the father who isn't the primary caregiver(usually) - but simultaneously has no standards whatsoever on the mother for "the best of the child."

Because apparently it's the best of the child that his mom is living off welfare and his child support money, as opposed to living with a parent who is working, making money and then STILL getting money from his other parent.

Kick them off welfare, if they can't support the kid, give it to the other parent. Then if they don't get a job to send checks to that other parent, throw the bitch in jail! If he can get a job, no questions asked, so can she.

Welfare moms are a drain on the economy. They're parasites. And who's paying the welfare? The people who choose to work. Kat when you were out there working 2 jobs to get your daughter braces, this welfare mom was sitting at home, living off the taxes YOU paid, because the system allows such abuses. This is not an attack on you, it's an attack on then.
... With a correctly set up system both parents would be forced to work, both parents would be forced to be providing money for the children and one wouldn't be living off support while the other works two jobs and the kid still gets the bare minimum.
You said your self how expensive it is to pay for a child. But that's when you do it correctly. For these women out there who make no income, imagine what kind of care their kids get?



Given that all situations and circumstances are different, including geographic locations as well the ages ages of any children, who do you suggest would look after the said children while the custodian parent worked? Childcare ? Hmmm is it available and/or afforable? I can tell you from experience, after faily exorbitant childcare costs there was a stage where my net income was LESS than If I had stayed home and tended to my child.

I believe you also suggest taking people off welfare after 6 months, apparently you don't see a problem in creating a third world poverty system.

"Welfare moms are a drain on the economy.." Are they ? What of those truly decent welfare mothers who strive to provide support and guidance to their children, who in turn may end up become decent adults, who in turn end up paying your Old age pension ( if you guys even have that in the Land of Hope and Glory).
What about those mothers or fathers who have no workplace skills because they were the stay-at-home parent so their spouse could earn the income and who are hmm say 40 ish and find themselves all of a sudden a "welfare" parent. What exactly are their employment opportunities? Have you ever heard of age discrimination?


You even make assumptions that the non custodial parent is equipped to deal with custody of a child ...they actually may not be for a variety of reasons.

Go and look at the percentage of your GDP spent on welfare...in particular look at the percentage spent on your so called "parasites". I am going to assume the percentage is minute in comparison to other areas of wastage.

Also, define this "lazy and neglectful" for me? I am sure there is a large majority of "welfare" parents out there that didn't deliberatley set out to become that and are doing the best they can to raise decent human beings.
 
All of the excuses you made up for the custodial parent for not working can be given equally to the noncustodial parent.

There's no excuse possible for the father to be unable to pay that is going to keep him out of jail, but for the mother it's possible she has no workplace skills or age discrimination.

Now obviously if only one parent wants custody is or physically able to care for the child, they get it, the other parent pays, end of story. The question is when one parent is going broke to send checks to the other parent who isn't even trying to get a job.

As I followed right after that post, when I talk about "Welfare moms" as paracites i'm not talking about all mothers on welfare. Also as you mentioned those kids who'll grow up to go into the economy, it's not an attack on the kids either. It's a talk on the FEW who abuse the system because the system doesn't have appropriate measures to keep parents from using the system to LIVE OFF THEIR CHILDREN.
 
The problem is that so many women become HYPER SENSITIVE when you talk about system abuses that they believe it's somehow an attack on the mainstream welfare system and the mothers who are using it because it's an emergency. I'm talking about changes to the system to allow it to not be so abusable so there's more money left for people who honestly need it while at the same time it doesn't actually give incentives for people to have children so increase their welfare.
They should get enough to live, but only temporary. Children are expensive, people need to be aware of that before they have them! It's people's responsibility to breed responsibily not the governments responsibility to cover for everyone's mistakes so that they can continue to live comfortably. Sometimes people don't have kids just because THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT.
 
Responsible breeding though is a different kettle of fish isn't it? We are discussing here what happens after the horse has bolted so to speak.


"The question is when one parent is going broke to send checks to the other parent who isn't even trying to get a job."

I don't think your understanding that aspect.....and I am willing to admit I could be incorrect as I have no clue how your system works, but the non custodial parent has to hand over 30% regardless of whether or not the custodial parent is in "paid" work. How that 30% is ascertained and if deductions are made prior I also have no idea. Perhaps you might like to find that out?

As for living comfortably... do they ? Somehow I just don't think 30% is going to give anyone the status of being "comfortable".
 
Firestreak said:
The problem is that so many women become HYPER SENSITIVE when you talk about system abuses that they believe it's somehow an attack on the mainstream welfare system and the mothers who are using it because it's an emergency. I'm talking about changes to the system to allow it to not be so abusable so there's more money left for people who honestly need it while at the same time it doesn't actually give incentives for people to have children so increase their welfare.
They should get enough to live, but only temporary. Children are expensive, people need to be aware of that before they have them! It's people's responsibility to breed responsibily not the governments responsibility to cover for everyone's mistakes so that they can continue to live comfortably. Sometimes people don't have kids just because THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT.

Ok well with that then you raise even more issues in and around who is "deserving" and who is not. So it's the universality Vs Selectivity quagmire.

Who would you have decide if one person is more deserving than another?
 
It's the welfare system that we have here, you'll get more benefits based on having more children, and then you'll get more child support based on each child(more money the more different fathers of those children). If you make money off a salary you lose benefits, but some women, especially in low cost of living areas, have managed to work the system since child support isn't counted as income, and they won't kick the mother off welfare, to have children as a means of income.

We all know working through single parenthood sucks, but we also know it's possible. Just as it's anyone's right to have kids, it's then their responsibility to afford those kids. I don't like a system that says that to the father but not the mother, especially considering the mother is the one who has the choice to have the kid or not and give the kid up for adoption or not if they just can't afford it.
 
Back
Top