Child Support Overpaid by $15-20 Billion

Men's News Daily ^ | July 3, 2002 | Roger F. Gay

[balrog666]

You must live in a fastasy world. Children do take up space that would not be required if they weren't there. They have possessions and need a room to sleep in. And yes, the house is most likely occupied for more hours requiring more use of utilities.

So what? Sell the house and rent a smaller place. A little hardship is expected now that the same paycheck(s) must cover two households. The demands for first call on the husband's paycheck "for the children" is all too often just a means for the wife to satisfy her greed while exacting revenge on her husband. If she needs that much more to maintain a "lifestyle", she should get a better job and quit bitching about her ex.

[w1andsodidwe]

"for the children" is all too often just a means for the wife to satisfy her greed while exacting revenge on her husband

Oh, how interesting. Custodial parents are greedy, if they want to provide a decent home for their children.

I think that the important thing is to provide properly for the children regardless and quit considering child support as revenge.

What a warped set of values you must have to worry more about some perceived revenge thing than the welfare of the children involved.

[balrog666]

Custodial parents are greedy, if they want to provide a decent home for their children.

If it doesn't consider the ex's need for a "decent home" as well, then you're damn right. Why is that so hard to grasp?

[EdReform]

BTTT

[w1andsodidwe]

If it doesn't consider the ex's need for a "decent home" as well, then you're damn right. Why is that so hard to grasp

Why do you have trouble understanding that a custodial parent is providing the home for the children?

The non-custodial parent is not, therefore he or she needs to contribute to their housing. I have known parents who share custody and the parents trade houses, but the children stay. That is the ideal situation.

The important thing is that the children have decent housing. The non-custodial parents anger at the custodial parent is not a reason to deny the children decent housing.

[No.6]

I was responding specifically to the case cited where the two parents had nearly equal custody and nearly equal incomes yet the difference between "he has the kid an extra weekend" and "she has the kid an extra weekend" was $22,000. In MI you don't have that problem.

Concerns about redress when the calculation doesn't fit the reality are valid, although MI allows the judge to override the guideline at any time.

[balrog666]

Why do you have trouble understanding that a custodial parent is providing the home for the children?

And so the custodial parent can pay for it. But if there's limited cash (which there almost always is) the home should be downsized to reflect that.
Remember that the non-custodial parent must also provide:
1) A home for themselves with
2) room for the visiting children while often
3) paying for both.

The non-custodial parent (oh, isn't that a nice term for fathers) is not, therefore he or she needs to contribute to their housing.

The question is "how much" and the antique argument for maintaining a "customary" lifestyle is nonsense in that it ignores the "needs" of the father.

I have known parents who share custody and the parents trade houses, but the children stay. That is the ideal situation.

Well, I'll take it as a given that loving and complete family is ideal. But, wow, if they can afford two houses and maintain freindly relaitons, then they don't count as a typical divorced couple fighting it out in court.

The important thing is that the children have decent housing.

Without considering the needs of the father to maintain a second household, that's a meaningless statement. If the father has to live out of his car or quits paying when he's had enough of being squeezed, they all lose. And so do we, if they collect welfare out of our taxes.

The non-custodial parents anger at the custodial parent is not a reason to deny the children decent housing.

The non-custodial parent's anger at visitation rights being unenforced (or used as a vindictive weapon), being squeezed for his last dollar, being hauled into court every time he gets a raise (or the ex- has a whim), lack of relief when he temporarily loses his job (or his car breaks down or ...), the stacked courts, ...

Of course, now that I think about it, he could have moved and changed his name at the first sign that the ex-wife was a castrating bitch, so maybe he brought it on himself by signing the final paperwork.

[Search4Truth]

When my ex-wife and I got divorced, she got custody by default, simply because she was the mother. If I wanted custody, I’d have to get a lawyer. Then when it came time to settle on child support, in my naiveté, offered to pay more than the judge was requiring. After all, this was my son, and could afford it at the time. Little did I know, how hard it was to get that changed when my circumstances changed. I had no idea that this court was then going to treat me as a deadbeat dad and that the court would give my ex-wife a free lawyer, while I had to try to find the money to hire one. I could not afford one at the time, so I got raked. The court’s attitude, F’you, pay her.

After the divorce my ex-wife and I shared the responsibilities of raising our son. Although at times she would leave my son with me for extended amounts of time. Sometimes we never knew when she would be back. It was of no real concern to us because my son and I got along just fine.

One time my son had not been to his mom’s house for almost a year. She would call every now and again, and my son would call her. We both knew she was involved in a relationship with this guy my son rather not be around anyway. So everything was fine with us.

Then one day she shows up. She took my son and immediately filed suit for a years back child support. Which I had not paid since she left my son with me. The court gave her a free lawyer again and dragged me into court.

The judge had no interest in the circumstances. He said that you pay her what you owe or go to jail. He said, you want the order changed, you come back to him. That required a layer, which I could not afford. They would not even begin such a process without $1,500 retainer and another $1,000 at the end.

There is more. When my ex-wife took my son, after having virtually abandoning him, and started this action against me, my son found out. He was very upset and let her know. She then commenced to beating the tar out of him. When I saw him a couple of days later he had a bruise that went from his eye to his chin, amongst others. The school had not even asked him about it or contacted me.

Well at that point this was no longer about money. I knew I had to get custody of my son. So I informed the police and CPS about the assault. In short, the CPS sought to protect her from me using this against her in the custody suit. The police could not do anything but go and talk to her and write a report. Although I could tell there heart was in it. They wanted to help more, but could not. The CPS woman made it clear she was not there to protect the child, but to simply process him. She said, if I did not like it, she would take the child from both of us and put him in foster care, until the matter was processed. I took it as a threat. These people are not your friends. They are bureaucrats with a Liberal agenda.

So then I went to court. I knew the judge was already hostile towards “men like me”, the assumption being in his mind that I was a deadbeat. So the judge told me I had to pay the back child support or go to jail. I told him that I had only the money, which I borrowed, to pursue the custody suit. That I needed to protect my son, and if this required me to go to jail, then so be it. The lawyer looked at me kinda surprised, and the judge perplexed. Then the judge called me over for a sidebar. He looked me dead in the eye and said, “I’m giving 2 weeks to prove what you have been saying. I’m going to order I psyche evaluation for you, your ex-wife and your son”. This is what I wanted. This third party could determine the truth and testify to it in court. When the court knew the truth, I knew I would prevail.

So I went to this social worker, then so did my son. We told her the truth about everything. My ex-wife, missed all three of her appointments. She knew that the story the social worker would tell in court would make it a cinch for me to get custody and child support from her.

The judge, upon hearing this, said if she did not go, she would be in contempt of court and she would go to jail.

Knowing this, I contacted her. I told her to meet me at my lawyer’s office, or go to jail. We agreed on me getting full custody. She would pay me an amount in child support calculated to his eighteenth birthday that equaled the amount I owed her. For this debt cannot be waived, it had to be settled.

Ever since that day, when I, in effect, took my wife’s gun from my head, the gun that the state had provided her, we have gotten along fine. That was ten years ago. My son just graduated from a private school. The first two years I paid for, the last year my ex paid for.

Looking back on all of that now, I can see that the court provided a battleground for my ex-wife and I. One in which they armed her to the teeth, and I was at a definite disadvantage. And the right and wrong of the situation was not considered until one was willing to put his freedom on the line.

I owe a debt of gratitude to the United Way Social Worker and that Judge who was willing to hear the truth. There still is justice in America. You just have to work a little harder for it I suppose.

[w1andsodidwe]

Ok, You've convinced me. Your problems with your ex wife are much more important than your children's welfare.

Of course you should continue holding a grudge at the expense of your children.

Have a good life.

[balrog666]

Ok, You've convinced me. Your problems with your ex wife are much more important than your children's welfare. Of course you should continue holding a grudge at the expense of your children. Have a good life.

Ignoring reality won't make it go away.

[Search4Truth]

Your daughter is blessed to have such loving parents. It is a real tragedy that the biological father has decided to forfeit so much. I hope he never realizes what he has given up. Children are everything.

God bless.

[RogerFGay]

Not an extra weekend .. just one overnight stay per week difference. Around $440 a night.

[Orangedog]

Ok, You've convinced me. Your problems with your ex wife are much more important than your children's welfare.

Of course you should continue holding a grudge at the expense of your children.

Have a good life.

It never ceases to amaze me that when the mother wants more money, it's for the children's welfare, but when the father wants more time with his kids and some consideration for his costs in providing for them while with him, then that is just being petty and holding a grudge. Mothers don't want the kids spending more time with the father if that means she has to make some sacrifices, like the father has had to. It would also mean that she would have to give up some of the power over the father that she feels entitled to. Life for divorced parents should be 'give and take' for both sides, not just one side telling the other to "pay up and shut up".

Are there fathers out there who just want to take off and abandon his wife and kids? Of course there are, and after the better part of a year experience with a lot of the fathers on the thread, I know that every one of them who have participated in this discussion would not have anything kind to say about those men. From my perspective, men like that give all divorced fathers a bad name and I refuse to associate myself or stay anywhere near them. But the existance of a small minority of small minority of true deadbeats does not justify how fathers are treated by the courts and the divorce and child custody industry. For every father who abandons his children, I'll show you an equal number of mothers who do everything in their power to stick it to the ex emotionally and financially, using their own children as, at best, pawns and, at worst, as hostages. I don't know you. I don't know what your experience has been in these matters. You may have gotten a raw deal. But for the vast majority of fathers, there is no winning...there are only degrees of losing. But the biggest losers in this are the kids. The fathers involvement in their lives is very important to the kids developement into decent and productive adults. If the mothers are not willing to even consider the thought that there are serious inequities with custody and support, then the the situation will never get any better for anyone.

[w1andsodidwe]

It's not about your feeling, it's about the kids.

[buccaneer81]

Hey, dog. You are spot on. You tell it like it is. If only we could organize and get some changes implemented. Well, I can dream. I just don't want this to happen to my son thirty years from now.

[stryker]

I've paid support for my first two sons for fifteen years although I have had custody for thirteen of those years. I knew my ex was only interested in the money, so I offered her a big child support settlement if I got the kids. She took it. Later, I wanted to go through ministry training for one year and we signed an agreement abating support for that year which the court adopted. After that year, she immediately moved for contempt, claiming that she should remain the custodial parent and that it was in the interest of the children that the court ignore the abatement order. As a lawyer, I was not surprised when the judicial advisor (we don't even get judges on these cases anymore) ignored the abatement order and ordered me to pay arrears and failed to restore my custody pursuant to the prior order.

Within a few months, Child Protective Services had found my ex unfit and sent the kids back to me, but the "deadbeat dad" label had been put on my case even though I had never missed a payment and even paid 150% for the first 3 years of the divorce. For over three years I had to constantly fight to stay out of jail although I was in compliance with all court orders and had never been found in contempt, but had only been ordered to paid arrearages, which I had immediately done. After a call to my congressman, I was finally able to get the collection agency to clear my account. Even so, as of now, although the boys live with me, the court order says my ex has custody and I still pay child support which she uses to spend on her crack addicted boy friend. This is justice in the modern American divorce court. Buy your kids if you're the husband and can afford it. Otherwise, you are just a slave on the selling block, your kids vanishing off to some other man's plantation; your labor stolen to support some other man.

[stryker]

This issue also brings up the issue of equity regarding abortion. If the justification for abortion is that it is the woman's body, then the fact that a man must work for 18 years to support a child also provides the same justification, if not a stronger one, for his having some say in the abortion decision. At a bare minimum, he should be able to opt out of a pregnancy within a certain time frame after being told of it and be freed from any financial obligations to the mother or child if she refuses to get an abortion. His eighteen years of labor are certainly worth as much as her eight hours.

[RogerFGay]

It never ceases to amaze me that when the mother wants more money, it's for the children's welfare, but when the father wants more time with his kids and some consideration for his costs in providing for them while with him, then that is just being petty and holding a grudge.

'Their initial goal was to obtain guaranteed alimony for women regardless of the length of a marriage or any other mitigating factor. Those in economically sufficient relationships would then be able to live in the manner to which they would like to grow accustomed without having to bother with a husband. Failing to get public support they turned to the question of making child support profitable. You know; "It's for the children." '

Source - elesewhere at freerepublic; About Now's Family Court Report

[William Terrell]

I have watched my own brother refused to spend a dime on his children because he paid child support.

Child support is spending more than a dime on his children.

If he were still married to their mom, I believe that he would not refuse to buy them something just because he had paid the mortgage for the house they live in.

But he would be enjoying married privileges, full participation on where his kid goes, when and who with and the joy (if he experiences joy here) of their company and interaction.

People need to quit using children as pawns and start behaving as if they love them.

Love can't be court ordered. Love toward children can be seen as an unvarying attention to duty, devotion of time and effort to see they are raised according to principals of right and freedom, feeding and clothing and dicipline according to custom and society. Emotion has nothing to do with it, and be a plus OR a minus in the raising.

[balrog666]

Well, you're getting a few comments but not winning any converts. I think that anybody who hasn't seen what a nasty divorce can do their friends or family hasn't been paying attention.

It's the women who tend to file for divorce when they find out they married a man and not a slave, and too many of them try to get the courts to do their dirty work "for the children's sake". If those women gave a damn about their children or their children's future, they could have put the same energy they put into the divorce into saving their marraige.

My suspicion is that you are either young and naive or work for the system in one of those so-called "Child Protective Services" that would have made Himmler proud.