Here's some weekend reading for ya:
Posted on 01/26/2006 7:00:29 PM PST by buccaneer81
Luzerne County Child Support It’s pay or punish Conahan’s crackdown questioned By TERRIE MORGAN-BESECKER tmorgan@leader.net
“I got to the point that I just basically gave up.” Stephen Galchefski Jailed in support case
JENKINS TWP. – Seven months ago Stephen Galchefski had an apartment, a truck and a job working in a tire store that paid $10 an hour.
It wasn’t much, he said, but somehow he managed to scrape by, despite an $880-a-month child support order that most months left him $400 a month to live on.
Then a bout with depression and an alcohol problem landed him in a mental hospital and rehab. He lost his job. His child support continued to rack up. In October he found himself before a judge, facing a contempt charge.
Galchefski, 30, said it was the first time he’d been called into court for falling behind on support, and he expected President Judge Michael Conahan would give him a chance to make good on the payments, especially because he had a new job waiting for him.
That had always been the policy of Judge Chester Muroski, who had handled contempt hearings for 23 years before Conahan took over in September. Galchefski was stunned when he was sentenced to two months and immediately jailed.
“I wasn’t even given a chance to speak to explain myself,” Galchefski said. “I said ‘your honor, I just started a job.’ He said ‘do you have the money?’ I said, ‘No,’ and he said ‘60 days.’ ”
It’s a rude awakening that has been experienced by dozens of defendants who have appeared at contempt hearings before Conahan.
Records from the Domestic Relations department show Conahan jailed 183 defendants from the 10 contempt hearings he held from Sept. 9, 2005, up to Jan. 13, for an average of 18 per hearing. That compares to 129 defendants who were jailed by Muroski during the 17 hearings he held from January to August 2005, for an average of eight per hearing.
The stricter stance has left Galchefski disillusioned with the court system. It’s also drawn the concern of some social service providers and clergy, who question whether it’s doing more harm than good.
“The way Judge Conahan is working, it gets addressed more quickly, but it also gets addressed in one way, which is incarceration,” said Tom Winiarczyk, chaplain at the Luzerne County Correctional Facility.
Winiarczyk, of Providing Hope Ministries, said he’s “disappointed” by the new stance because it’s essentially scuttled a program begun in 2005 that sought to help people facing child support contempt obtain jobs.
Under Muroski’s tenure, defendants who owed back support were brought in for a first hearing. If they showed they were making a good faith effort to pay they’d be given two to four weeks to catch up. If they failed to make good on the promise, they were brought in for a second hearing and typically sentenced to six months.
“We were able to contact persons at the initial contempt hearing and give them job leads. That opportunity has disappeared,” Winiarczyk said.
The higher incarceration rates also have put a strain on the county prison, which is severely overcrowded. In 2005, prison officials spent $564,000 as of November on housing inmates at other institutions because of the overcrowding, according to Warden Gene Fischi.
Conahan declined to comment on his reasoning, saying he does not comment on court procedures.
Jim Davis, director of the Luzerne County Domestic Relations department, said the new stance has aided his department in that support officers now only have to go to court once instead of twice. It’s also getting non-payers into court more quickly. Whether it’s increasing compliance hasn’t been determined yet.
“We thought we’d wait until after the first year to compare and see,” Davis said.
In Galchefski’s case, he’s said his incarceration accomplished nothing except to cause him to lose his job, his residence and his truck and fall even further behind in his support payments. When he went before the judge he owed about $3,000 in back support. That has swelled to $4,778.
And he now has another bill to worry about: He owes the prison $600 for his two-month stay.
“I’m guilty of not paying, but in no way did that decision rectify the situation at all,” he said. “If I wasn’t locked up, I would have had half my (back support) paid. Now there’s no way.”
Released from prison last month, he’s living with friends. He just obtained a job that will pay him $10 an hour and that, after taxes, will leave him with about $1,280 a month. But he’s still required to pay $880 to his ex-girlfriend for their 2-year-old son.
That figure includes $600 in basic support, plus another $220 he has to pay for his share of the boy’s child-care expenses while the mother is at work. He also has to provide medical coverage for the boy, which will cost him an additional $60 per month, for a grand total of $940.
Galchefski said he can’t understand why he’s paying so much when other people he knows who have an income similar to his are paying $75 a week for one child. His ex-girlfriend was working when the support order was entered and earned slightly more than he did.
“She gets to have custody and I get to pay everything. It makes me feel like I’m being punished for creating a child.”
Galchefski said he did not intend to fall behind on support. Part of his problem stemmed from the fact he was hit with a bill for $1,800 in back support as soon as the support order was entered. That’s because support is calculated from the date the custodial parent first files and continues to accumulate while the parties are waiting for a hearing. In his case that took three months, at $600 a month.
Even with that, Galchefski said he was making payments on time, until personal problems sent him on a downward spiral.
“I had house bills, an electric bill, a car payment, insurance. If I missed a day of work, I got $80 and $90 paychecks,” he said. “I got to the point that I just basically gave up. I went crazy and wound up at First Hospital.”
Even though he was out of work and in rehab, his support obligation did not change. He said he was out of the hospital two weeks when he got the notice he had to appear at the contempt hearing.
“Life happens. People lose jobs,” he said. “I owed what I owed, but I should have at least been given a chance before being locked up for 60 days, before losing everything I own, to explain myself and be heard. They give people who drive and smash up cars a chance. Why can’t they give someone a chance for child support? I felt I was the same as someone who killed someone.”
Davis said he could not comment on Galchefski’s case. Speaking generally, he said defendants are given opportunities to catch up on support before they’re brought before the judge. They’ll first be sent two notices. If they ignore those, an enforcement conference will be held. It’s only after that conference that a defendant will be listed for contempt court.
“It’s not like you miss a payment today and we haul you into court next week,” Davis said.
Galchefski insists he never received any notice before being called in for contempt.
Regardless of the past, Galchefski said he’s trying to comply with his order. He’s hopeful that should he fall behind again, Conahan will be more willing to listen.
“I don’t mean to be down on Mr. Conahan or insult his decisions. I just think he should at least look at what he’s doing.”
For a more detailed chart on what non-custodial parents will pay under the new guidelines, go to www.timesleader.com
For an online calculator that allows users to calculate exact amount of support that will be due under the new guidelines go to .html Terrie Morgan-Besecker, a Times Leader staff writer, may be reached at 829-7179
Show me where I said that, nooB, and stop being an idiot.
The "little girl" crap is uncalled for. But I suspect you may lack the elan to understand that.
Think before you post, nooB.
Never said little girl, and never said you said it was OK to anything. You just got your panties in a wad over the little girl comment not even directed to you and stopped thinking. I guess you think name calling is OK, since you called me a "nooB" ??? and an idiot. You do act like a little girl though. Grow up.
I have rules here on FR. I don't engage with people who:
Atribute an opinion to me which I never stated.
Take me deliberately out of context.
Come off aggressively from the start in a pathetic attempt to intimidate. (Don't waste your time; you're clearly no match for me. Better men than you have failed.)
You have violated all three.
Therefore, I am through with you. Buh-bye! ;-)
I'm sorry! I started a discussion with a fool, which is my fault. That's the problem with this medium, fools like you can lurk and hide.
Here's some weekend reading for ya:
Neanderthal ping.
Let's look at this from a different direction....
A woman is raising your kids... both of your kids. Not her kids, not his kids - your in the dual sense - kids! It takes two, remember!?
Kids are expensive. Mom is probably working AT LEAST one full time job to help supplement the $880 you are ordered to pay each month.
You stop making your payments... because of alcoholism....depression...whatever...
What are your kids going to live on while you take a mental health break from life? Would you prefer the mother and the children to be homeless because of their mentally weak father/ex-husband?
What will the kids wear to school, eat for dinner?
Who pays for their doctor bills, new sneakers, the new doll your daughter always wanted?
Why does no one see it from the child's point of view?
Or, how about the single mother who is desperately trying to keep it together while her ex-husband is in rehab?
Blame the woman... she was a whore/slut/b*tch and doesn't deserve anything...blahblahblah...
Same old neanderthal rhetoric from the knuckle draggers around here.
I agree with you....
They are trying to justify killing an ex-wife because she is "forcing them" to pay for THEIR CHILDREN!
Good grief....
Don't have them if you don't want them --- for the rest of your life! Kids are forever!
BS....
No one is living off $880/month with kids these days.
She's probably working two jobs just to keep the kids in food, shelter and clothing.
She probably wouldn't trust him to babysit their kids - with his bouts of "depression and alcoholism".
HE is an unfit parent, who ignores his responsibilites!
If the support payment was unfair... he should petition the court to have it lowered - he should not just think he's getting away with not supporting HIS KIDS!
Your situation has nothing to do with this story.
For you...
DO: See a lawyer and get it fixed.
DON'T: Blame every women in the world for your situation.
My daughter is paying her ex child support. She works from home and is their day care provider before and after school 5 days a week regardless of whether or not it is her "custody" time, otherwise they share custody...one week with dad, one week with mom.
Dad was clever enough to manipulate the calendar so that we has custody of the kids ONE MORE DAY PER YEAR. Based upon court ordered calculations, she pays him.
It just says it all so....eloquently. ;-)
It just says it all so....eloquently. ;-)
There's a weird warp between here and Jim Rob's sever in California....
Moral to the story....
It's dangerous to marry a scumbag, even if he started out in sheeps clothing.
I just pray that no one takes these disagreements out on the kids.
Yep, we'd best be careful about whom we choose to mate with, married or otherwise.
>I get to say it a second time today:
>Men are legally slaves to their ex-wives and children.
And that, my friend, is the truth.
Don't tell me you are advocating that the taxpayers should pick up the tab. In the grand scheme of things, these are personal squabbles. No offense, but I don't think my tax dollars should be used for your relative's life choices.
That's exactly it! So many people spout off about the poor guy who has to pay too much when they are out of work, etc. As a single mother who is putting two sons through college, and my ex- just got back to work after being laid off after 911, I have done my homework.
Each parent pays a percentage toward raising the child, depending on each parent's income and employability. If the financial situation of either parent changes, a simple modification to the child support order can be filed. No rocket science involved. Maybe a $25 filing file. I know, because I did it!!!!
Since all this support is supposed to be in the best interest of the child, maybe it is also a good idea for the parents to communicate as well. (Duh!) My ex- kept me informed of his situation, and he helped out when he could. And the kids still respected him for at least trying. Can't stress it enough: Whatever is in the best interests of the child!
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.