[cdad]

I read an interesting article and I thought I would throw it out here for discussion. Since this isn't the legal board we can have a much broader discussion.

Here is the article:

California Senators Vote Unaminously to Bring Back Indentured Servitude? - Associated Content from Yahoo! - associatedcontent.com

But more to the point. If the system is taking all they can from a person for child supprt is it fair to drive them into further indebtedness by forcing them to pay interest on arrears if they are already making payments on the arrears thereby keeping a noncustodial parent in the child support cycle for 20 or more years after the children have grown?


Keep in mind that the system takes away privliges like passports etc.

Also should laws be passed to make sure that child support actually goes for the benefit of the child?



Id like to hear others opinions on this.

[martinizing2]

I don't find this too surprising.

If they can break the unions, keep the wages low enough that a large number of people will build up arrears in child support, then they can have the judges that they "own" by means of financial or political debt or "payments" to...
Sentence those people owing child support to work for corporations without pay , which would mean even more money in their hands to give huge bonuses to the executives
To spend so it will trickle down to the kids who are going without health care , decent housing, school supplies.

Good idea

[JudyKayTee]

I see problems with the system as it exists. I also don't have any solutions.

People are not aware of their rights. Non-custodial parents lose jobs, suffer injuries, have financial setbacks and don't know they can go back to Court for a modification.

I am aware in my area of a Family Court Judge who refused to hear a modification Petition because she "only hears matters six months or more after the initial decision." Non-custodial parent was working when the Order was issued. Now he's laid off. She doesn't want to hear about it for, basically, four months.

The "he/she is spending child support on himself/herself" echoes through the Courthouse halls every day. I don't know how the use of the money could be monitored. The Courts simply don't have the manpower to do so. I HAVE seen Orders come down requiring the non-custodial parent to pay half (or a percentage) of the rent. That way the custodial parent isn't hoarding money, not paying rent, getting evicted with the child in tow.

The argument also is if I keep a roof of "our" child's head and the child support money enables me to do that AND buy $300 shoes - is that right or wrong?

I'd like to see interest on arrearages determined on a case-by-case basis. I've seen custodial parents grind their teeth when non-custodial's can't afford child support but spouse #2 is fronting the money for trips to here, there, everywhere.

Of course, holding spouse #2 responsible for child support isn't fair either.

Then that brings out the argument of disposable income - if "we" both work, do you have MORE disposable income because someone else is there to help "you" with your living expenses?

As far as the Judge and the "six month rule" this is the same Judge I've posted about before - State law is that support goes back to the date of filing. Not in her Courtroom. She has (so far, and she's being quietly monitored) adjourned a child support case four times because the custodial parent will NOT agree to waive this past-due amount. Until she does it is my feeling that there will NOT be a decision - so the non-custodial is being starved out.

And now a few words about Family Court... {fill in here}

Califdad, do you know what I'm saying?

[Fr_Chuck]

I have always had the issue, while of course many parents do care for their kids, there are far too many who almost live off welfare and child support, and instead of a good quaility of life for kids, the parent uses it for smoking, drinking and for themselves more than the kids. There is no rule in general that the money has to be spent on or even for the kids. Some let grandparents actually raise child and just pocket the support.

After that, if a person works or gets paid, the government should know from tax withholdings and now 1099 for almost any business incomes, so why not a data base of who is working, that is done at the time they start work, not months latter when taxes are being deposited,
Then the courts can know who is working, where and for how much.

[Synnen]

How about we just go back to the system where if you knock someone up, you get to BOTH be miserable for 18 years until the child is out of your house, or face social disdain and ostracization?

How about going back to "taking responsibility" meaning either getting married (and STAYING married) or putting the child up for adoption?

How about a little less dignity allowed for parents that are okay with sleeping with someone, but not okay with raising the resulting child together?

Get rid of welfare altogether, and have child support be paying for specific items and bills rather than a being a cash payment---and the bills are limited to a specific amount. In other words, if the NCP pays the water bill, they pay it up to X amount, and then the custodial parent is responsible.

I'm just tired of the whining from BOTH sides. I'm at the point right now where I hate the whole system. I'm so sick of the whole thing that I'd be HAPPY to start treating unmarried mothers they way they were treated in the 1890s.

[cdad]

I understand what everyone is saying here. Let me give an example right out of today's times. A NCP gets laid off because of a plant closure. Previuosly they were paying 50% of their gross to child support. So lets say it was $1,000.

Because of the crush that has taken place and the overwhelming of the court system they aren't able to get a job for 8 months and have a court date at that time. So now the courts reset child support to the new wage which now the NCP is only paying $800 because that is all they could find. So take home would be $600 at best. Its very hard to live at $600 per month. Let alone take care of a now $8,000 arrears.

So if they can pay only an additional $50 per month towards those arrears. Leaving them with $550 per month to live from. They will end up paying well beyond any original arrears over the time of the child rearing years.

Its not enough to cover interest. If a person is paying in good faith I don't believe they should be punished for it. The interist should stop at the point payments are being made and that way the NCP isn't digging a larger hole for later in life. After 10 years of paying they would still owe $10,000 or more on the original $8,000 debt in arrears. It's a never ending cycle.

As far as tracking of child support being spent. If the states are handling it then why not issue a card like welfare has and it can only be used for food and children's items. With a monthly stipen for rent / utilities. Because when you invole visitation when your doing is forcing one side into poverty and the other side can live how they want. It's a broken system. And since child support isn't deductable the full paycheck is accounted for by the NCP. So it makes them appear much higher in the payscale then they actually are so they are denied services like legal aid because they make too much money.

What can we do to change this broken system. What's fair for all parties involved?

And synn many marry and expect to last a lifetime and don't. Please try to remember that in most cases divorce can be granted on a no-fault basis. So even when stepping up to the plate how much is enough ?

[Synnen]

And then there's the OTHER side of it, where people deliberately work under the table or take lower paying jobs than they could simply to screw the CP out of child support.

For instance--my ex-brother-in-law has a medical degree. When my sister left with the kids, he quit his job and got a job at Wal-mart. Since he can count his medical degree in with his expenses, he pays $400 a month for 5 kids. How can a CP make ends meet with that kind of piddly payment? That's not even half her rent, much less other utilities and other bills. It's not even close to covering FOOD for the month! In the meantime, his mom is happy to have him live at home and not pay rent or other bills, so his leftover money at the end of the month is his, free and clear, while his kids wear Goodwill clothing and my sister goes to the Salvation Army for their food bank. She also qualifies for food stamps and government health care because even though she works 40 hours a week, she can't afford everything for 5 kids and his money barely helps.

So maybe I DO agree that some deadbeat parents should go work their butts off to hand over their whole paycheck---the ones that are deliberately working the system so that their ex can't "live off of them".

[cdad]

Dealing with a deadbeat parent on either side of the coin is no easy task. I tend to be harsh on people using that word when it doesn't seem to fit. In the case your describing it fits. And that is where the cracks in the system lay. Here is a website you might wish to pass along for those that have to struggle through things from time to time or those in need.

Welcome - Angel Food Ministries

[JudyKayTee]

I would say a good part of the problem is the lengthy delays in the legal system. A person loses employment and it can be (in my area) up to six months before the case can be heard. In the meantime the financial clock is ticking.

I have also found that the Court does NO investigation of claims. Recently an Order was given that the father pay (aside from the State-mandated child support) 90% of child care. Child in day care 5 days a week while mother "looks for employment." Court made no attempt to verify that she does, in fact, seek employment 5 days a week.

At some point someone has to get real!

My other tooth grinding aggravation is who claims the child on the IRS returns. I am aware of someone who supports his daughter AND her child - and the mother happily files a tax return and gathers up the refund.

The IRS guidelines need to be changed.

[cdad]

I would say a good part of the problem is the lengthy delays in the legal system. A person loses employment and it can be (in my area) up to six months before the case can be heard. In the meantime the financial clock is ticking.

This is where the problem comes in. The parent out of work does try to activley seek employment and tries to hold the line with what they can while unemployed. So arrearages pile up with penalties. So when the parent gets a job and becomes stable again should the system further punish them when they are trying to catch back up and are making payments to the arrears? In my opinion they should not receive further penalty for trying to do the right thing. Those that dodge child support are in a different category. The least the law can do is to allow the interest to stop so long as payments are being made. Otherwise the system is forcing good people to go bad by punishing good behavior. It makes no sense to me.

[JudyKayTee]

And I agree - in NY (for example) when child support is 17% of income (for one child), the Court has already issued an Order there should be SOME mechanism to "automatically" reduce the amount of child support as soon as that income drops, not 6 months later.

In NY he Court can and sometimes does eliminate interest when here are reasons for unpaid support - of course, I have no idea who determines which "reasons" are and are not valid.

I don't like to see child support used to bludgeon the non-custodial parent over the head. Vindictive ex-partners do, though.

[cdad]

And I agree - in NY (for example) when child support is 17% of income (for one child), the Court has already issued an Order there should be SOME mechanism to "automatically" reduce the amount of child support as soon as that income drops, not 6 months later.

In NY he Court can and sometimes does eliminate interest when here are reasons for unpaid support - of course, I have no idea who determines which "reasons" are and are not valid.

I don't like to see child support used to bludgeon the non-custodial parent over the head. Vindictive ex-partners do, though.

One yardstick they could use is that of the poverty line. If the parent is pushed beyond that line it is illegal in the first place. So if the courts order the parent to that line then interest should stop. So long as current child support is being made. That's my opinion not the law.

[JudyKayTee]

Agreed -

[GV70]

Hello,Greg!
I may say it is not valid only in California. It is called "Imputed income" in some other states.It is pervert system and it can be done so easy...
Judge,"Your income is $2,500 a month?"
Man,"Yes."
Judge,"I think you may earn $5,000 and I will order you to pay $ 1,500 as child support and $ 1,000 as spousal support."
Does it make sense? No, but it is court practice.
It is all about money.
The child support policies seek to reduce poverty and financial insecurity among children and custodial parents.
Child support laws generally presume families with divorced fathers working full time. This presumption does not match the experiences of many low-income parents.
The system has inability to recognize or respond to parent's unstable economic circumstances.

He court will impute income to the parent based on:
(1)the potential employment that the parent has based on his/her work history and skills;
(2) a review of the past work history of the parent;

By the way I was shocked;
"today unaminmously (38-0) passed legislation to help increase the number of child support payments collected in San Mateo County," which further states "...would establish a program in San Mateo County to provide judges with the discretion to order an unemployed child support obligor to seek work at the time of the initial hearing determining such support."

[GV70]

I understand what everyone is saying here. Let me give an example right out of todays times. A NCP gets layed off because of a plant closure. Previuosly they were paying 50% of thier gross to child support. So lets say it was $1,000.

Because of the crush that has taken place and the overwhelming of the court system they arent able to get a job for 8 months and have a court date at that time. So now the courts reset child support to the new wage which now the NCP is only paying $800 because that is all they could find. So take home would be $600 at best. Its very hard to live at $600 per month. Let alone take care of a now $8,000 arrears.

So if they can pay only an additional $50 per month towards those arrears. Leaving them with $550 per month to live from.

SSI - The monthly maximum Federal amounts for 2011 are $674 for an eligible individual /and
$845 is the maximum amount in Ca./ and $1,011 for an eligible individual with an eligible spouse.

In my view that should be the threshold.

[cdad]

SSI - The monthly maximum Federal amounts for 2011 are $674 for an eligible individual /and
$845 is the maximum amount in Ca./ and $1,011 for an eligible individual with an eligible spouse.

In my view that should be the threshold.

And even with those ratings it leaves no room for the expenses of visitation.

The cost of living being a home to sleep in and insurance and gas for a car to pick the kids up with. There is nothing left for food to feed anyone with.

Im not arguing Im just pointing it out.

What Is the Average Rent for Homes in California? | eHow.com

[GV70]

I have no idea who determines which "reasons" are and are not valid.

The judge;)

[GV70]

If you cannot support your own children... why you should have some?

[GV70]

I remember the east-European situation. The Gypsies' s families have 10 and more children and the only thing they want is their SSI to be increased on account against others.

[Synnen]

If you cannot support your own children...why you should have some?

EXACTLY!

But it's not that simple, either. My husband and I together make a very decent salary. It's not six digits, but it's far above the poverty line. We're FINALLY pregnant after 10 years of trying---and we're trying to figure out how we'll afford day care. For an infant, it is nearly my entire take-home salary every month for day care. How can ANYONE who makes less than we do afford it? We're talking about $300 a week, and that's for 40 hours. Any more than that (and since most people WORK 40 hours, they need that extra time to get to work or get to daycare on either side of their work day) is extra---and when you go over your time, they LOVE to charge you more in fees. It's absolutely insane. And we're MARRIED and living together! How can a single parent possibly do it?

And yet we see questions all the time about people not being married but having 3 kids together---what the hell is wrong with people that they don't make that commitment to each other when they've already got the commitment to the kids?

And the people getting pregnant on purpose when they KNOW they can't afford it just makes me sick.

That's why I want to see welfare disappear, honestly---people would be a LOT more careful if they didn't have government money to fall back on, and they'd be more likely to NOT have kids without a commitment to each other. Which all things considered would be better for the kids in the long run.