Virginia Panel Votes to Leave 'Child Support' Undefined

This is my point: The purpose and subject matter of the law has not changed since it was enacted. The term "child support", as it is used throughout title IV describes kind of obligation established under this program. It is an obligation owed by absent parents for the care of dependent children. These are also terms of art. An absent parent (now refered to as a non-custodial parent) has abandoned his family, and left them dependent on the state (they are now eligible for cash payments under one of the federal welfare programs. A child is a "dependent child" under the act if his father's desertion left him destitute. These terms were defined, and the classification they describe still controls eligibility for IV-D services. The trouble with the feds giving complete discression to determine eligibility standards for those "at risk" of becoming dependent without cash payments from an absent parent (non-public assistance cases) is the states failed to set any standard, and arbitrarily set an award amount without consideration of need. I don't care what they call it now. The subject matter has not changed, and cannot change without repeal and re-enactment.

The subject matter has not changed, and cannot change without repeal and re-enactment.

You seem to be completely unaware of current "child support" practice. Upon divorce, the father (99% of the time) is required to pay the mother by a rote formula. In Texas it's 20% of net monthly income for 1 kid, 25% of net monthly income for 2 kids, and so on.

This is imposed irrespective of whether the child spends significant time with the father, gets food, clothing and shelter from the father, or whatever.

Often the father is required to pay some goobermint office who transfers the dough to the mother, regardless of payment history or anything else. It has nothing to do with dependency on welfare, abandonment, or any of the other things you mentioned. It is entirely a rigged game run by our family courts to benefit the mothers and screw the fathers.

Let's have a little reality, please.

I agree that child support is a rip-off...especially in Virginia...especially in King George County..
Speak about being screwed...as the mother (active duty Marine) with custody I had to pay to go to Circuit Court to get court ordered child support because the family court judge said he didn't think the father (civilian with a good job) should pay (father's lawyer was better buddies with the judge than mine). After the father admitted to living in the family home, paying none of the bills including the mortgage and not paying anything towards the kids. After the father admitted to harassing me at work and continued to threaten me in letters, over the phone and in person. The judge refused to award child support but he granted visitation. (oh and all the "agencies" said I made too much money to qualify for any assistance, WIC or food stamps)
Luckily I was an E5 in the Marine Corps at the time and was able to get base housing - I lost everything else but my kids. Then in Dec 1993 I had to get out of the USMC because I couldn't pick up rank and couldn't deploy due to my legal situation.
After 2+ ugly years I was finally granted a divorce - a lot poorer but much wiser and with full custody.
I think you should be prepared to live without any child support if you're getting a divorce no matter whose fault it is. It's not easy but it can be done.
My ex-husband hasn't paid a dime since 1993....but he's left us alone so I consider it a good deal. The ex doesn't even try to contact us because he doesn't want to pay (owes well over $53K by now). At this point - that's fine with me.
It's a long ugly story just like countless others.
I was a single parent for over 5 years and although we struggled I was able to rebuild our life. My children and I have a real man in our lives now - we're all happy and doing just fine.

The only winners in a divorce are the lawyers.

Let's have a little reality, please.

The reality is the history. Do the research. Maybe you believe everyting your "goobermint" halfwit employees do is authorized? Show me where, and I'll show you how the law is misinterpreted. How many applications have you filled out, that are accepted without any verification or eligibility criteria?

I'm very well aware of current practice. That's why our bill to add legislation incorporating eligibility criteria, and an application verification policy is getting significant attention (Minn. HF 1031). No one can believe there were no elgibility verification proceedures in place, until we pointed it out. It's a reletively simple concept, really, and it's proving to be difficult for the "players" to shoot it down. They point to vague language in CFR 302.33, while we can document our position with Congressional testimony and case law that confirms a requirement for the states to establish eligibility criteria for "former and potential" recipients of public assistance who are at risk of falling on the public for support without payments from an absent parent.

Current "child support" practice is unlawful under the act, and in violation of state and federal constitutions. The law is perhaps void for vagueness.

The reality is, people have to quit complaining and start supporting legislative reforms, but please do so with a little understanding of the program you're dealing with.

I wish you luck in your legislative attempts.

Your argument reminds me of the income tax folks who tell people how they can avoid paying income tax.

Theoretically they're right - practically they're wrong.

Whether child support was originally intended only to those who'd be on welfare without it - or not - is now a moot point. There is simply no consideration given to this, and family court judges would laugh you out the door (after doubling your payments) if you propounded it.

Child support is now a criminal collusion between family courts, lawyers, consultants and females.

It's going to take some drastic reform to change it. Too many folks are making too much money.

...family court judges would laugh you out the door

I can tell you, they are not laughing! Our legislature is giving plenty of consideration to this, and a policy committee hearing is being taped by a local TV news crew today. It's the money angle that has given us the opportunity to sell the bill. There are some huge savings here that are not going unnoticed.

Thanks for the encouragement. You'll hear us, if we get this through, and regardless, we have the issue on the table now, and too many people are involved for it to die easily.

I have always said "A hit man is cheaper than a lawyer". I knew a guy in Greensboro who was pretty rough. When his wife left him and threatened to "take him for all he was worth", she got a visit in the grocery store from a man who asked about her and her kids by name and wished nothing bad happened to her kids. After the 3rd time with a 3rd person, she settled.

No I don't think people should kill their ex-wives. But if you want to play a rough game, expect difficulties.

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.