My ex- wife left me and our 3 children for another man. I filed for child support over three years ago and still have not received a dime. She is over $15,000.00 in the rears. The reason is that she had gotten pregnant and had twins and now she is now on welfare.
NJ Probation told me that they cannot collect from her wile she is on welfare. So this enables her to get public housing, food stamps, medical, and live with her boyfriend all supplied by the city of NY.
This is very frustrating I work 2 jobs to make ends meet in NJ. What can be done to expose how they are abusing the system and to get her to pay her child support? I already contacted the fraud dept but no avail.

She isn't in the rears. She's IS in arrears.

If you have talked to the people in charge of collecting support and they have said they cannot collect from her due to whatever the circumstances are, I would believe them.

I don't see any attempt at "exposing" this situation getting child support for you.

Go back to Court and see what a Judge will say - although I would believe what the system has already told you.

Judy, I think we should coin a new phrase, that of being "in the rears" :-). But in all seriousness, I had a heck of a hard time a few years ago trying to figure out the difference between "arrearages" and "arrears", or being "in arrears" and "having arrearages" (not sure if you can say "in arrearages"--maybe but it sounds kind of weird)--

But to the OP's question, I wondered about this myself a while back, why a person on welfare doesn't have to pay child support but then it dawned on me that if a welfare recipient had to pay support from welfare, which is just free money from the government, wouldn't paying child support from welfare be the equivalent of welfare, i.e. the government, paying the child support? And if that is all it is, why not do it this way: If welfare would otherwise pay a mom $1,000 per month in benefits (hypothetically) and if she would have to turn around and pay from that $200 per month in child support, why not simply pay her $800 per month in benefits and make the $200 available directly for the kid? Doesn't it make more sense to do it that way? It does to me and, although I am no expert on public benefits law, I think this is exactly how it is done and the reason way welfare recipients do not have to pay child support.

One part that I left out was that she voluntary left het job making 45,000 a year and then jumped on the welfare wagon. Nobody even looks at this.

So you take her back to court for being in contempt of court. She is still suppose to pay, just not able to. So what you do is use the court systems if you wish.

So keep taking her back to Court and bringing this to the attention of the authorities - no one here has any inside information.