Child Support Official Says Bad Economy Helps Him Collect $ by Garnishing Dads' Unemployment Checks!

www.glennsacks.com ^ | 01/26/09 | Glenn Sacks

[PercivalWalks]

It's hard to believe, but the head of child support collections for Idaho says that unemployment is the "'unexpected' silver lining to Idaho's economic malaise." Why? Because it's easy to garnish dads' unemployment checks!

This is the typical attitude of child support enforcement officials--their job is to collect as much money as possible, regardless of whether the dad is poor or homeless (not to mention if he has been unfairly denied the right to be a part of his children's lives or isn't even the father of the child). Federal incentives which reimburse states for their child support enforcement operations feed the problem, since they also largely ignore these issues.

From Higher Idaho joblessness yields child-support cash (Idaho Statesman, 1/25/09):

BOISE, Idaho (AP) - Idaho's rising jobless rate is apparently helping the state collect child support, as Department of Health and Welfare collectors garnish unemployment benefits.

Director Richard Armstrong told the Joint Finance-Appropriations budget writing committee Tuesday that rising collections from deadbeat dads have been an "unexpected" silver lining to Idaho's economic malaise.

Some who historically haven't paid child support have now filed to collect unemployment benefits after joblessness more than doubled in a year to 6.6%, the highest in more than 20 years.

Armstrong says his employees can more easily garnish deadbeats' state checks - including to cover payments that are months in arrears.

How long this boost lasts is unclear. State unemployment benefits generally end after a maximum of 26 weeks.

To write a Letter to the Editor of the Idaho Statesman, click here. To comment on the story, click here.

The story can also be found in other Idaho media outlets--click here for others.

[a fool in paradise]

A father is on the hook for 18 years whether he wants the child or not. The mother can shirk her own responsibilties to that child if she decides to kill it.

Our nation is screwed.

[MahatmaGandu]

I don’t know if it’s still the case, but New Zealand used to let American men file for asylum to escape unfair child support orders.

[bassmaner]

This is, IMO, the biggest reason why fewer people are having children.

[AbeKrieger]

I am virulently anti-abortion.

Inasmuch as it exists and “freedom of choice” is pushed men should be provided with some right to privacy as well.

Tell me where I am misguided, as I am sure you folks will...

[Secret Agent Man]

It’s interesting, this tactic has become yet another incentive by liberals to make people stop having kids. They make it insane on the guy to ever think about having kids with a woman for fear of divorce and becoming a wage slave to power and intrusion of the state to ‘garnish’ wages and make your life a continual IRS audit for a long time.

I’m not saying guys shouldn’t support their kids, what I am saying is that not only does this mindset allow libs to punish men (pushing feminist ideology), it allows the state to have much more control over your life (big govt libs happy) and for some guys, it makes them not want to have kids with a spouse (population control libs happy).

[Natural Law]

The act of shirking the financial responsibility for one's child is beneath contempt. One can divorce their spouse, but not their children and moving on to the second or third wife does not in any way reduce the obligations towards the children by previous spouses or paramours. The act of not being more selective in who you choose to have children (or sex) with should have lasting consequences. The worse she is the bigger the mistake YOU made.

[beaversmom]

Isn’t this a wonderful, grand world the leftists have created?

[a fool in paradise]

It’s probably no longer the case. New Zealand recently turned down an applicant for immigration because he was “obese”.

[stylin_geek]

Tell that to my ex wife, who moved on to boyfriend #3, got the house, kids and my paycheck.

I’m not the exception, either.

Nice to know you see divorce as a one sided, male dominated event.

[Natural Law]

"It’s interesting, this tactic has become yet another incentive by liberals to make people stop having kids."

Excuse me, but the center piece of liberal theology is sex without consequence. Is that what you are advocating for?

[a fool in paradise]

There are people who will also argue that if you’ve been paying child support for a child that you later learn, through DNA testing, is not really yours (and that you have no legal reason to expect any continued relationship with that child), you should STILL be financially obligated to that child because you “became” dad.

I don’t mind holding the men to their obligation. I think it is SICK that N.O.W. calls it “freedom” to be able to kill a child that is inconvenient for “one” of the two parents. That child has rights. Abortion is child abuse.

[Natural Law]

"Nice to know you see divorce as a one sided, male dominated event."

I'm guessing that you weren't her first (nor she yours). As I said in my earlier post, the worse she is the bigger the mistake YOU made in choosing to father children with her. As painful as it might be you only have yourself to blame.

[beaversmom]

...what I am saying is that not only does this mindset allow libs to punish men (pushing feminist ideology), it allows the state to have much more control over your life (big govt libs happy) and for some guys, it makes them not want to have kids with a spouse (population control libs happy).

Wreaking havoc and the ensuing chaos--it's what makes their world go around.

[Natural Law]

I think it is absurd to create the straw-man of subsequent DNA testing potentially disproving fatherhood to undermine an overall obligation to support ones children. Of the three parties involved in these cases; the husband, the wife, and the children, those with the greatest moral rights, but least legal rights are the children. Fatherhood isn't just biological and genetic. Once you have formed a bond with a child you have an obligation to maintain that bond both financially and emotionally. Kids, even those not biologically yours, are pretty damned special and rewarding.

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

It shouldnt matter whether he wants the child or not, if he helped create the child, he should help support the child. So should the woman.

[nesnah]

A-friggin’-men, Brother. Been there, done that in spades.

Funny how much it is assumed that the man is the one who screwed up. Thanks, feminists.......

[oldenuff2no]

As a single custodial father I raised two daughters for 10 years by myself.
I didn't get one single penny of child support and refused all state medical and food stamp programs. I told the judge that they were my children and it was my responsibility to raise them refusing to file for Court ordered support. He told my ex to make sure she contributed in a fair manner. I never got a dime from her. She had our children good bit of the time. I made sure of it. I believe I have earned the right to speak on this issue.
If anyone thinks the courts are fair to men in child custody cases then they need to get in line with their friends and depart on the next UFO to a place where these beliefs are true and valid.
Natural law, you are full of bull crap. Men shoulder the mass of support for all children in this country but have very limited rights and the courts are making damn sure it stays that way.
Child support is about children's rights. Children also have a right to both parents yet in almost all cases the woman gets the majority of time and legal/physical custody. Is this the crap you seem to want to defend? It is quite common for a woman to withhold visitations with assorted excuses if the father gets behind in support even though the courts have legally determined that the two issues are not connected. I have herd attorneys advise their clients to take this action. I've watched the illegally empowered mothers get away with it too. Child custody and support in this country has become nothing more than a form of indentured servitude. Even when every dime of child support is paid there is no way to ensure that the child is getting any benefit from those funds. There are no checks and balances. The child custody laws in this country are set up to give women all power over children and to minimize the fathers input into their lives.

[AbeKrieger]

I love it when I suggest to folks that the men should be allowed to sever ties to the child at birth (remember, no murder happening here), how reprehensible that “choice” would be, but yet they can kill the child without even battign an eyelash and that is acceptable in the eyes of liberal law.

I don’t advocate either... but the responses one gets are most interesting.

[Natural Law]

"Funny how much it is assumed that the man is the one who screwed up."

If you choose to have children with her YOU did screw up.