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
OMG... That is Great. LOL
MM
Couldn't legal aid help you with the custody issue?
""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.""
How did that even happen? What state do they live in? She needs a better lawyer.
They live in Utah. She makes substantially more money than he does.
When they were separated, she agreed to continue paying for day care since she was working outside of the home then. When she was able to rearrange her schedule so that she could work from home before school and after, she took them out of day care. Hubby thought that was somehow unfair since she no longer had to "pay." It's a mess, they haven't been back to court, but I see them heading in that direction.
Well, considering that LauraLee has stated in many previous posts that she is 18 years old, I wouldn't call it "crap."
As far as calling RightRight a "noob", I do believe we were all new here at one time.
My ex committed adultery, left, took my son, got full custody after I went through $30,000 fighting for custody and somehow its the man's fault?
She makes $42k, I make $50k and I pay $800 a month. In essence, she pays nothing to raise our son.
Oh and I see my son FOUR days a month. The courts say that's plenty. Sure.
So all you man haters keep living in your feminist fantasy world. Forced separation of children from a parent and confiscatory transfer of income are hardly conservative ideals. Are you ladies sure you're on the right forum?
As usual, the female in you has taken an opinion out of context. I would never condone murder. But considering the price men pay when a selfish woman decides to destroy his life and deprive him of his children, it is good to know that 99.9% of men are decent, stable human beings.
When the government tells you how often you can see your kids, and you have to pay a fortune to your ex who created the entire mess, you get back to me.
Look dumbass, I never said it was OK for anyone to hurt anyone. I don't care how old you are. I didn't call you "little girl". I pointed out a fact. """"Push anyone too far and they strike back or crack."""" I did not excuse any illegal or violent behavior. Too often you see 2 people from a divorce and so full of hate they cannot even look out for the child(ren). Push anyone too far and they react, sometimes violently. I did not say it was OK for this guy to do anything to his ex. Learn to read. I would guess this guy is part the lower socio-economic crowd and he probably did not marry the school valedictorian. Don't bother to reply as I am tired of talking with foolish sexist people.
Thanks for the assist, rightright. I have a BA (International Relations) 1985. I'm currently working on my MA in History at Ohio State. But you are correct in that I did not marry the sharpest tool in the shed. My mistake. And I keep paying and paying and paying.
$880 would pay my mortgage, utilities, phone, internet, and have a little left over. I've got kids! His ex-girlfriend was working when the support order was entered and earned slightly more than he did.
Okay, he's making $10/hour, let's say she's making $12. His gross per month is $1600, hers is $1920. She's taking $880 of his money, bumping her gross to $2800/month, While he's left with his after tax/confiscation/etc. of $400. Oh, well that was before he lost his job, truck, etc. because of being thrown in jail.
We worry about the kids, yet we show them how we punish the father by breaking his financial world, his spirit, and sending him into alcohol. What a great message for the kids. Oh, and teach them like you do. Kids emulate their parents. These kids will be far more likely to experience their own divorces, lousy family relations, and such than kids that grow up respecting their fathers.
I noted in the story that he was attempting to keep up with this outrageous confiscation of his income, but failed and was punished for failing. Is this just? Is this what women want? To pass on this kind of heritage?
Suppose the earth and the moon switched places?
You speak in BS..What ifs - I'm not playing!
Bye
Perhaps, but not all of us were trying to be tough and coming off as idiots.
Not all of us went blatantly attributing opinions to another that were never stated.
As you have done as well.
Why don't you two tough guys just go sit around and beat your chests together and cry about how evil, hateful awful women are?
How in the heck did you you come to that conclusion? Did you even read the post, or do you have some sort of automatic "don't steal my money" reflex.
The Court screwed up the first time; he had to pay "out of his own pocket" for lawyers for years to rectify the situation.
The court should have made the correct decision the first time; thus no more of his money would have been spent. FWIW, SHE had lawyers paid for by you, the taxpayer....Legal Aid.
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.