Posted on 01/27/2009 8:36:55 AM PST by 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.
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....
I see where you specifically identify “moving on to second or third wife.”
I’m not letting you off the hook on that one. You see it from an evil male standpoint, period.
You are also denying that perhaps, just perhaps, people change. We were married 10 years, and she went off the deep end, for whatever reason.
So, from your point of view, I’m supposed to recognize who a person is going to be in 10 years.
That’s a ridiculous idea, at best.
And, I might also point out that women have all the control when it comes to pregnancy. If a guy wants the kid and the gal doesn’t, she is free to have an abortion. He can do nothing about it.
If he wants nothing to do with the gal or the kid, she’s entitled to his paycheck.
You see it from an evil male standpoint, period.
The above should read “You see at as an evil male event, period.”
Uggh.
Not that I am planning on it, but when talking to a woman once about if I ever got divorced, I said I would not want to sue for child support and would want joint custody, because of crap like this. The woman said she used to think that way, but said that women should file for child support or their exes will just get out of their responsibilities. Sad.
Indeed: The job of child support enforcement officials is to collect the child support which the family court adjudicated - and not to launch inquiries into or make summary judgements about whether the father is poor or homeless, or has been unfairly denied visitation, nor should they entertain speculations about whether he even is the father of the child.
Regards,
Given current administrative rules,
then the father has the right to choose too.
He can chose to pay for 1/2 the abortion and not ever see the child again.
The price of fatherhood is 1/2 the cost of abortion.
What this is REALLY ABOUT is the FEDERAL MATCHING FUNDS.
For every father OR MOTHER in the child support collection system, there are federal matching funds to be had.
The states have a pecuniary interest in keeping families broken.
Well, in all fairness to women, the divorce problem was created in the seventies. (My Mom and Dad, along with several others I knew divorced at that time, so, first hand knowledge)
Husbands started leaving wives, because the pop psychology of the time said “don’t stay together just for the kids, it’s not good for the children.” There was also a big movement for people “to express and find themselves.”
The backlash from that has brought us to where we are now.
So in other words the woman has no responsibility? Her role is that of the scorpion riding on the turtle’s back - she stings the man because “it’s my nature?”
So then she has no moral obligation - she’s just doing what women do, and we can’t expect any more from her?
You seem to be saying that a woman is evil by nature and a man should just expect to be screwed over by her, and if she robs him of his house, children and paycheck, it’s his own fault for trusting a woman.
Interesting view of women, I guess.
you are being distracted,
the real purpose of these manuvers is FEDERAL MATCHING DOLLARS.
The state agencies only pursue fathers OR mothers because they recieve federal matching dollars for every case under the state files.
This is about money, period. NOT children, not fathers, and not mothers. The desk jockeys want money.
“Once you have formed a bond with a child you have an obligation to maintain that bond both financially and emotionally.”
I will grant you the latter, but as the system has been turned into a means for deceptive persons to con the innocent out of 18 years of cash payments, not the former.
By the logic of “once a bond is formed” uncles, grandparents, and teachers of the children should look out for support payments levied against them? Obviously not. Nor is it reasonable, in the case of deception, to reward the deceiver.
In my opinion, someone who lied to get a support payment attached to the wrong father ought not to receive years of cash payments for the deed, but ought instead to be deemed an unfit parent. If the non-bio parent is, as you say, closely bonded with the children, let that parent have custody and let the liar become the payor if not be jailed for perjury.
Where there is not fraud:
Certainly there are many cases in which the (bio)father does not have a bond with the children but is correctly ordered to pay; and legally the issues of visitation (emotional/parenting support) and financial support are 100% separate (ask any non-custodial parent who tries withholding payment when the custodial parent withholds visitation).
It is certainly not correct to say on the one hand that when the non-custodial parent complains about not being able to provide support in the form of visitation that the monetary and emotional support are kept separate, but then simultaneously to assert that when it suits the desires of the custodial parent that an emotional link and a financial one are one and the same.
Yes, but there are two liberal ideologies at work here. Sex without consequence, yes. Part of that is abortion. Abortion allows sex without consequence. An ancillary benefit (to the left) is that it also reduces population numbers.
Why would you think I’m advocating it? I’m pointing out that with liberal ideology, often more than one goal of theirs is obtained. Some are easy to see, some are more subtle.
I wound up with my kids also. Eventually. Two daughters and a boy. Being the single parent of three teenagers is a job. That, plus working full time.
I didn’t sue for child support either. I wasn’t as nice about it as you were, though. I used the threat of child support as a club to keep my ex off my back.
It worked very well.
I forgot to mention that I didn’t deny the ex visitation, either. She was able to get the kids whenever she wanted, provided they wanted to see her.
The one beneath contempt is the jackass spouting cliches and platitudes that haven’t meant anything substantive for thirty years.
Your screed is as heroic as a college professor denouncing racism.
Then YOU pay for them!
No, he shouldn’t. She doesn’t have to.
You don’t GET to choose whether or not to have children with her. All you get to choose is whether you’ll have sex with her, which is the same choice she gets to make.
Reproduction is totally out of the man’s hands.
I see, and in your world, women are never to blame, it’s always the men.
You are a self righteous jerk, aren’t you?
I was married 10 years before she started running around. Although, I’m guessing reading and comprehension aren’t your strong suit.
So yeah, in that regard, I guess I should have been prescient and realized there was going to be trouble 10 years down the road..that’s sarcasm, by the way.
Trust me, the person with the problem here is not me. I sleep fine and have gotten on with my life.
However, I’d guess you’ve never gotten over the guy that treated you like garbage.
There is plenty of blame to go around, but you can't deny some culpability in your selection process when Ms. Wonderful turns out to be Mrs. Cvnt.
"However, I’d guess you’ve never gotten over the guy that treated you like garbage."
Although my parents divorced after a less than ideal marriage I've been happily married to my high school sweetheart for 37 years. She was my best friend before she became my wife. She was a member of my parish. I knew and respected her family, her community, and her values before the relationship advanced. She stuck by my side, and I hers, through a lot. By the way, I'm the father of four and the grandfather of two.
One of my sons is a practicing family law attorney and children's advocate in the local courts and I have seen and heard stories and anecdotes that make your whining seem childish.
You assume a lot while knowing very little about me.
You painted men with a broad brush and now you’re upset because you’ve been called on it.
Men get the shaft under current laws in the US when it comes to divorce.
It’s not whining when I make an observation along with having first hand knowledge of the subject.
Don’t try to start down the “plenty of blame to go around.”
That doesn’t let you off from your original “blame men” screed.
The only child around here is you, because you can’t accept that you’re way off base with your accusations. Instead, you indulge in gratuitous name calling.
Your “plenty of blame to go around” is nothing more than the old moral equivalence canard. “Plenty of blame to go around” does not excuse the way men are currently treated by the courts.
Oh, and by the way, don’t give me that “parish Christian” garbage. The self-proclaimed “Christians” were the first ones to turn their backs on me, even though they knew of my ex’s multiple affairs.
Again, yeah, I made a poor choice, however, if I could see 10 years down the road, I’d be rich, too.
You, sir, are defending the indefensible.
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.