Unable to pay child support, poor parents land behind bars

MSNBC ^ | 9/12/2011 | Mike Brunker

[PieterCasparzen]

It may not be a crime to be poor, but it can land you behind bars if you also are behind on your child-support payments.

1. Only on msnbc.com 1. Updated 67 minutes ago 9/12/2011 12:10:41 PM +00:00 A day in the life of Iran’s president 2. Updated 70 minutes ago 9/12/2011 12:07:45 PM +00:00 Obama: We’re not where we need to be 3. Unable to pay child support, poor parents jailed 4. Getty Images Stock No promotion yet? Maybe you're not the boss' favorite 5. How 9/11 changed Pakistan 6. Image:Banff National Park UGC It's A Snap! Vote for your favorite travel photo 7. Image: Survivor 23 cast CBS Best Bets: 'Survivor,' 'Top Model' return to TV

Thousands of so-called “deadbeat” parents are jailed each year in the U.S. after failing to pay court-ordered child support — the vast majority of them for withholding or hiding money out of spite or a feeling that they’ve been unfairly gouged by the courts.

But in what might seem like an un-American plot twist from a Charles Dickens’ novel, advocates for the poor say, some parents are wrongly being locked away without any regard for their ability to pay — sometimes without the benefit of legal representation.

Randy Miller, a 39-year-old Iraqi war vet, found himself in that situation in November, when a judge in Floyd County, Ga., sent him to jail for violating a court order to pay child support.

He said he was stunned when the judge rebuffed his argument that he had made regular payments for more than a decade before losing his job in July 2009 and had recently resumed working.

...

[Responsibility2nd]

I forgot to add....

That if we do away with so called “family courts” and no-fault divorces, then we should expect an onslaught of children with no daddies to support them and only bigger welfare checks as the answer, right?

WRONG.

We SHOULD increase the tax benefits to married familes and the tax burdens to single parent families. And if anyone fails to support their children, then book them into jail under child endangerment laws and place the kids in foster homes.

Again; history tells us this plan works. We know that there will be very few instances where children would be removed from the home. And very few instances of socialized welfare benefits for millions of single welfare queens.

As I’ve always said: RAISE taxes on poor people - not the rich.

[George from New England]

Can anyone contribute on this idea ...

Once you get behind on child support, etc, you WILL be denied a passport if applied for, or do they actually revoke passports if you already have one?

[cuban leaf]

You brought up what I think is a great way to handle divorce: If one wants out of the relationship “without cause”, they can file for divorce (to make it legal) and then simply leave. The house, the savings, the kids. Everything that is “the family unit” to start their own life.

Heck, a LOT of married women without kids do just that, but don’t bother with the divorce part. They just leave.

Of course, it may bring a lot of hardship on the one that leaves, but that is why they should count the cost.

Oh, and if they are the primary wage earner in the family, this option is not available. They’re gonna have to find cause.

[bbernard]

“You brought up what I think is a great way to handle divorce: If one wants out of the relationship “without cause”, they can file for divorce (to make it legal) and then simply leave. The house, the savings, the kids. Everything that is “the family unit” to start their own life”

I could support this wholeheartedly. If you want to leave then you should leave. And leave it all, your choice. Of-course this does not mean in instances of domestic violence or abuse.

[GOPsterinMA]

That's accurate, which is why I suggested to my friend he apply for a passport ASAP before TSHTF.

Also, if a person has professional licenses, one cannot renew them. Same thing with a driver's license in some states as well.

[PieterCasparzen]

I'm sure you can find plenty of examples where it's alleged that child support is being spent on things, other than child related.

How about... a woman who constantly presents hospital emergency bills to her not-to-smart low-income ex-husband who has since remarried and has a new happy wife and child. He is afraid that he will be "in trouble" so he always keeps scraping together money to pay these bills and the support. The ex-wife keeps playing with visitation - saying that he can't see the kids because he hasn't paid the bills. In reality, the law in that State says that visitation and child support are SEPARATE issues; he can't be denied visitation. Also, the ex-wife MUST use his insurance and abide by it's rules - which specify that the children must go to a (easily available) primary care physician for colds and so forth, that emergency room visits must be paid by HER if she is not following the rules, since the husband acquired health insurance for the children and provided id cards to her. It took some other people to help this guy retain a good lawyer to straighten things out - she stopped calling him constantly at home and at work messing with him. How about this - working as an office-cleaner for an attorney - and taking the kids with her to help - so she could get cheap lawyering with frequent motions made in court which harassed the man for mo' money - including her writing what looked like legally threatening letters to him on the lawyer's letterhead. Renting out rooms to itinerant workers that she employed in a business. Rooms in her home where the children were living. Making her children work in her businesses. All while hammering on her ex-husband for mo' money. A crazy woman run amok in the legal system. And the poor ex-husband would show up in court, studdering, being demeaned by the judge and assumed to be a "deadbeat".

Judges are supposed to stop this abuse of the system. When they don't that cat is away and the mice will play.

[cuban leaf]

—And now she makes 300K? that doesn’t sound like a drug abusing nut case to me—

You’ve never been to Hollywood, have you?
8-D

[cuban leaf]

A guy in IT can easily find a good contract and move to another country. He can be tracked down, but they really have to want him.

[George from New England]

“I sat in on family court prior to my court dates to get a feel for it. I was shocked by what I saw. I no longer respect the US.”

I was denied the ability to ‘sit it’ — courts claim privacy as the reason. So only the rip-off lawyers get to see the shams in progress. Behind closed doors where even the media cannot let the public see what goes on.

[Hodar]

News flash—if she makes nothing, you get child support based on imputed minimum wage, not any part of his income. And she will likely get credit for overnights and what non monetary support she provides, clothes, supplies etc.

What planet has this?

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=116352&page=1

Let's look at Mick Jagger to just disprove your statement. That's somewhere between $5-35K/month to a fling with a model. That number is based on Jagger's net worth - it has nothing to do with any missed income his booty-call earned either in the past, or the future. The judge has determined that the child is ENTITLED to some percentage of Jagger's net worth.

That's not the case in either Texas or Washington state, either. The child support payments are calculated on the father's HOUSEHOLD income (after taxes, but before bills). For example, say he re-marries (as in the case with my daughter); she is paying a portion of her income, to his ex-wife for child support; despite the fact that his ex-wife is remarried into a family that is considerably wealthier than her family. The child-support is based upon the HOUSEHOLD income. If either of them were to get an increase in their income; his ex-wife would then sue for more childsupport. The Ex-wife has filed to increase childsupport twice in the past 12 years, and each time the judge has ordered tax records for the father, and my daughter to be considered. And yes, the child support payments went up both times.

[cuban leaf]

—It’s not and you shouldn’t. You won. You devastated her. hope you are happy. You got it all.—

Is that the “broad stroke” thing again? On what do you base that?

[Justa]

"...these poor ladies at age 55, the husband goes for Trixie LaRue..."

Lol, I knew it. Stuck in the '70s much?

'70s-era sterotypes applied to a 2010s legal system does not make for a very convincing argument.

Yeah, who loves ya baby?

[GOPsterinMA]

Good point! This person isn't in the IT field, but should be able to get a job in his field that would allow him to exist in another country.

Plus, he's trilingual, so that's another plus for him in regards to living abroad.

[WMarshal]

About 10 years ago my wife and i hit a rough patch and she threatened divorce and that I would be sc**wed because we had 2 kids. I told her in no uncertain terms that I would leave the country before I would ever let a judge have that kind of power over me. She accused me of not loving my children and I said that I would still support them but on my terms and that I trust no judge with my money and freedom.

[cuban leaf]

—The system literally dangles a big fat windfall payout in front of every married woman. 24 hours a day - the offer is there. Just pick up the phone and make that call. And you can get rid of your husband, legally, for once and for all - and still get him to pay you as much as he can possibly afford every month. If you’d like, you can torture and tease him with the kids, but you don’t have to.—

Those right there are the most important words in this thread. It is why my animosity doesn’t go to the women divorcing their “regular guy” husbands at record numbers, but the system that LITERALLY motivates them to. When it comes to the woman, the state plays the part of “homewrecker” as much as the husband stealing “other woman” does with the man. Sure, responsibility lies with the husband and the wife in each situation, but still...

I will say this for the state. They are a homewrecking machine that likes to keep it strictly business: I payed my ex via payments to the state. I know of some guys who paid the ex directly and were forced to pay again when they could not prove they made the payments.

[yldstrk]

Oh in your world, men who have 55 year old homemaker wives never have affairs and want off the reservation?

[PieterCasparzen]

I don’t see many replies offering opinions on the idea of the family court judge being the sole arbiter in these cases.

You know, the 7th Amendment Constitutional question.

If you ever find yourself in family court - there is no jury !

You will simply have to be stuck with the verdict rendered by the judge.

What say ye ?

[cuban leaf]

—Of course, it’s all a lie, as the husband’s attitude will shift after the divorce, he will be forced to be a part-time father to the kids.—

In my case I felt more like a favorite uncle. It permanently damaged how I view my children and my perception of their view of me. It is like 1944 and I am England, the ex is Germany, and my kids are Switzerland.

To this day (and they are in their late 20’s and 30’s.). I will never feel close to them.

[cuban leaf]

—We need divorce reform in this country. If both parties don’t agree, no divorce.—

Yep. Unless there is cause.

I remember the phrase used by philandering husbands to their girlfriends in 60’s movies: “My wife won’t give me a divorce”.

Whatever happened to that?

It would all be so easy if we got married because of desire to please our future spouse rather than our desire to be pleased by a future spouse.

[cuban leaf]

—In which state? In my state support ends at age 18 or upon the last day of high school, but never past 19 1/2.—

http://www.google.com/search?q=child+support+college&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7