[uvware]

I've seen both sides of the coin.
My brother had a child with this girl who has children for a living... her whole family lives off the child support and welfare that she is collecting from all the fathers.

My brother (who is not an angel either) recently graduated from rehab and wants to get his life in order. The court has ordered him to pay $451/mo and will take away his license if he doesn't pay. Which makes no sense.

He is a felon and has a bad rap sheet but does want to get his life on track and support his child. They don't understand that it takes time and that he will start on min. wage. Now, how is he supposed to live, eat and pay $451 a month? Yes, he did have this child, but what responsibility does the mother have. She doesn't work, she just gets checks from the state for her 6 children, welfare, low housing income and food stamps/WIC.

We should help the people who want to help themselves and put guidelines for people who do not want to help themselves.

I know this is not all the situations out there, but they should look at the reality of the situation and work with the fathers.

[JudyKayTee]

If he has been ordered to pay $451 a month and that is not in line with State law or his income/expenses then he needs to file for a reduction.

The reality of the situation is that the child needs to eat, wear shoes, have heat and light and the father is at least partially responsible for providing those necessities. Should the child go without while the father is attempting to get his life back on track? As a taxpayer, I think it's his responsibility, not mine.

And the sad part of the situation is - and I appreciate your brother has had some problems - that your brother had a child with a woman who (apparently) has never worked, has X number of children with other men, receives Government benefits and he is now
surprised that now she's going after him for support (just like she chased after everyone else) - ?

I appreciate that he's your brother, he's coming out of a bad place, you love him, you will defend him to the death - but he created this child and now it's his responsibility to support the child.

You've also posted that he can't find employment because he has tattoos on his face. Has he looked into getting those removed?

[ScottGem]

I moved your post to its own thread. Your response was way more about your brother then about the issue raised by the OP of the other thread. Since your post didn't really respond to the OP's issue I moved it.

[uvware]

If he has been ordered to pay $451 a month and that is not in line with State law or his income/expenses then he needs to file for a reduction.

The reality of the situation is that the child needs to eat, wear shoes, have heat and light and the father is at least partially responsible for providing those necessities. Should the child go without while the father is attempting to get his life back on track? As a taxpayer, I think it's his responsibility, not mine.

And the sad part of the situation is - and I appreciate your brother has had some problems - that your brother had a child with a woman who (apparently) has never worked, has X number of children with other men, receives Government benefits and he is now
surprised that now she's going after him for support (just like she chased after everyone else) - ?

I appreciate that he's your brother, he's coming out of a bad place, you love him, you will defend him to the death - but he created this child and now it's his responsibility to support the child.

You've also posted that he can't find employment because he has tattoos on his face. Has he looked into getting those removed?

I totally agree with you that it's not the taxpayer's responsibility, but your answer still did not address the responsibility of the mother. I think we all feel that children should be taken care of and it's the parent's responsbilities, not the state. I feel that it should be BOTH my brother and the mother raising their children and working to support them.

About the tatoos, yes he has... but if you've ever priced it out it's very, very expensive they go by square inch. He's now looking to see what non-profit organizations out there can help with it.

[JudyKayTee]

I totally agree with you that it's not the taxpayer's responsibility, but your answer still did not address the responsibility of the mother. I think we all feel that children should be taken care of and it's the parent's responsbilities, not the state. I feel that it should be BOTH my brother and the mother raising their children and working to support them.

About the tatoos, yes he has....but if you've ever priced it out it's very, very expensive they go by square inch. He's now looking to see what non-profit organizations out there can help with it.

I know what you're saying but she is supporting the child or providing some of the support - she's collecting State benefits which, of course, boil down to the taxpayer again. For whatever reason she is getting Government assistance.

Good for him about the tatoos - and I know it's incredibly expensive. I did read and now I'll have to try to find it that some anti-gang tax force, maybe in NJ, was offering assistance or free gang symbol removal. Wonder if that transfers to tattoos which keep a person from finding employment? I'll have to see if I can find it again.

[this8384]

Yes, it is the responsibility of both parents to support the child. I'm not sure about your state but in WI, if this woman is on all of this state support, then they're going to require her to look for work. You don't just file for welfare and watch the state roll over and give it to you.

If she has all of these children that she's collecting all of this money for, her income is going to be above or near the poverty level and she isn't getting nearly as much as you think she does.

[uvware]

I know what you're saying but she is supporting the child or providing some of the support - she's collecting State benefits which, of course, boil down to the taxpayer again. For whatever reason she is getting Government assistance.

Good for him about the tatoos - and I know it's incredibly expensive. I did read and now I'll have to try to find it that some anti-gang tax force, maybe in NJ, was offering assistance or free gang symbol removal. Wonder if that transfers to tattoos which keep a person from finding employment? I'll have to see if I can find it again.

Thanks I appreciate you looking!

[pugglemama]

What a handicap to be born into a situation like this. I feel really bad for the 6 kids in that family. Is the mom a loving, caring mother? Or would they be better off in another more constructive family?