Points to ponder

[Boxcarbill]

Well, unfortunately in our case, the access laws don't work, while the support laws seem to be great at their job. Of course, this could be because my SO is not a deadbeat and pays his support. Even so, my SO had his credit damaged, his license threatened, his passport taken away, and his garnishment increased due to his ex collecting welfare while receiving CS. While CSE garnished his second job wages within two months of his hire, it took forever to clear up his arrearages from the fraud even though his paychecks clearly showed the garnishments during that time period. While he was suffering the fallout of that debacle, he was denied visitation. Of course, nothing happened to his ex. Maybe other people have trouble getting CSE to do their job, because CSE is spending all their time concentrating on my SO. I know that you shouldn't have to choose between having money or having your children, but my SO doesn't have his money OR his children. It's hard to argue that his glass is anything but empty. And his ex, well, her cup runneth over. I wonder if any CP who isn't getting her share of CS would trade places with a NCP who isn't getting any visitation. It shouldn't be all or nothing, you're right. But sometimes, it is.

The Judge is not going to send a door-to-door canvassing of the entire divorce population in their county to see if everyone is paying support and everyone is getting visitation. Unless the party files a Motion to Enforce, nothing is going to happen and that is regardless of whether we are talking about support or visitation.

As for screw ups by the CSE, incompetence works both ways. You are terribly misinformed if you think that CSE is doing a wonderful job of collecting and enforcement of child support. Let me give you some information regard CSE. Six reasons account for 94 percent of closures and 96 percent of closure errors. The six reason are:
* Inability to locate noncustodial parent of alleged father
* Inability to establish paternity
* No enforceable order, and arrearage less than $500.
* Non-TANF client requests closure
* Non-TANF client uncooperative
* Lost contact with non-TANF client.

The ncp does not have a monopoly on CSE screwups. See http://www.oig.hhs.gov/oei for some additional insight.

 

[Lil Miss Smarty Panties]

While you're here BIll, tell us where to find the elusive federal funding reports that BLCM speaks of LOL.

 

[Whyte Noise]

 

[Boxcarbill]

So, BCB....(I'm gonna stir a little s*** here, hubby says I'm good at it!)

Can you honestly say that "the law" is applied equally to everyone? That no one ever REALLY gets screwed, that's it's all in that person's perception? That the Golden Rule--"he who has the gold makes the rules" NEVER applies? That the lady whose daddy plays golf with the judge never gets a better deal?

I can honestly say that knowing the law and knowing all the facts, in family law, (not corp law and not contract law) I have NEVER seen anyone get "screwed" but I have seen people lose who should have lost and did lose and did feel that they got screwed. But without exception, every single case has came out exactly like it should have based on the law and the facts. That means I saw a male homosexual win custody of his children. I saw a Lesbian win custody. I saw a white step grandmother (who was going to divorce her husband and whose husband did NOT join her in her motion seeking custody of the grandchild) win sole custody of her hispanic grandchild. Now, the conservatives would probably say none of those people should have won. But under the facts and blindly applying the law to the facts that is exactly what should have happened and that is exactly what I predicted would happen and that is exactly what did happen. No, I'm sorry to disappoint you but I cannot say that I have ever encountered justice bought, sold or bartered in family law--ultimately justice is done. I cannot say that is true when the financial stakes are much higher in corp v. corp.

 

[Whyte Noise]

Pssssssssssssssssssssstt

Here's California's....

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/caprogram.htm#performance

Federal incentive payments:
$63.27 million (This is for FY 2000-2001. I iamgine it was more this year and last year.)

OK, that's 3 different state's that I've given to ya. You can't figure out by the URL where to go and look?

 

[theother]

The Judge is not going to send a door-to-door canvassing of the entire divorce population in their county to see if everyone is paying support and everyone is getting visitation. Unless the party files a Motion to Enforce, nothing is going to happen and that is regardless of whether we are talking about support or visitation.

As for screw ups by the CSE, incompetence works both ways. You are terribly misinformed if you think that CSE is doing a wonderful job of collecting and enforcement of child support. Let me give you some information regard CSE. Six reasons account for 94 percent of closures and 96 percent of closure errors. The six reason are:
* Inability to locate noncustodial parent of alleged father
* Inability to establish paternity
* No enforceable order, and arrearage less than $500.
* Non-TANF client requests closure
* Non-TANF client uncooperative
* Lost contact with non-TANF client.

The ncp does not have a monopoly on CSE screwups. See http://www.oig.hhs.gov/oei for some additional insight.

Boxcar, I hope that I am not ticking you off. I'm not really trying to argue with you. I was just trying to say that the laws do not always work. My SO did try to enforce the order. Like many NCP's here, his efforts to hold his ex accountable through the courts were futile. The possible punishments for refusing visitation do not seem to be as extensive nor as utilized as the punishments for nonpayment of support. Perhaps visitation is just not taken as seriously where I am. I would be interested in hearing what the normal consequences for denial of visitation are where you're from and how often they are used. And believe me, I am well aware that CSE can be incompetent on both sides. But I also believe that the state emphasizes the pursuit of "easy targets" while true deadbeats escape the system. This is perhaps a consequence of the way that the federal incentives are set up and the obsession with increasing collection numbers. I think that you may have me confused with someone who can't see both sides. I can. I am well aware of the deadbeat horror stories that many CP's face. The system can fail on both sides and does frequently. I am just saying, that given the choice of it failing for me when I have my kids or when I don't, I would rather have my kids anyday. That is just my humble opinion. I'm not trying to change your mind on the subject. I'm just stating my point of view. Please be aware that I don't mean to offend. Now that I've said my piece, I think I'll just let it rest.

 

[Boxcarbill]

One could argue that Child Support Enforcement is better funded because it is supposed to benefit the children, the support being their right while the Visitation Enforcement is left to gasp due to some confusion about whether or not it is to benefit the child or the NCP. I am not arguing the case that a child should not have access to both parents, but pointing out that if we truly did have the childrens best interests at heart, we should be looking at visitation as the child's right as well. If we could enforce that legally, or at least enforce on deliberately absent NCP's that they either needed to attempt to meet the visitation obligation or change the schedule to better suit theirs and the child(ren)'s needs, then maybe we could persuade powers that be of the theory that visitation should be at least as well funded as CS enforcement.

Add in the practical aspect of that an NCP who sees their child regularly is more likely to pay support (not that I think the cause and effect is that simple, but more likely that decent caring people want to support and see their children!) and the real cause of the better funding for the CS enforcement, that the government isn't paying for children when they can find someone else to foot the bill. Which, I don't entirely mind in theory, I don't like paying someone else's way when they are capable of paying it... But like any beuracratic organization of it's size, and then drag in the human element of case workers and judges who have their own prejudices from life experience, it isn't always fair. Nothing is. That is the nature of life. Sucks, don't it?

There isn't any big secret to the money for enforcement of child support. It's John Q. Public and Mary Smith raising hell about taxes going up to support children whose fathers and mothers were not supporting them. It was about reimbursement for taxes that are spent on supporting children and elected official who heard and the public outcry, "Welfare." There isn't any big, damn mystery to it. Visitation is a personal matter. It is not costing taxpayers money to subsidize the lack of visitations.

 

[Whyte Noise]

But why should enforcing court ordered child support be any different from enforcing court ordered visitation? That's what I, and a lot of others, don't understand. Contempt is contempt, no matter how you look at it. Why are there a different set of rules for NCP's that don't pay support than there are for CP's that deny visitation? They're both violating a court order, but the punishment for the non-paying NCP's is more severe than ANY punishment an access-denying CP gets. You can't lose your license for denying visitation. You can't lose your home, have your wages garnished, have liens placed on your property... none of those sanctions apply to CP's. Well, I take that back. Here in Missouri, they do. BUT, try filing in a court here to actually GET those sanctions against that CP, and see what you get. A big, fat, nothing. Missouri also has a law on the books that an NCP, with good cause shown, can petition the court and have the CP give them an accounting of where the CS goes to. Has it ever happened? Not once that I know of. Even an attorney told my SO... Yes, it's there. But getting it enforced is another thing. Then WHY have the damn law in place if you won't even enforce it?

Missouri got $4.7 million for enforceing child support orders. They got a measly $100,000 to establish visitation access programs. What makes the damn money more important than a child's relationship with their parent? Because Joe Blow is tired of paying Welfare for single parents? Well, the NCP's are tired of paying BACK the Welfare that their ex's got by lying to get it in the first place, and not one thing happening to the person that commited the Welfare fraud to get it. I can tell you of 3 posters on just this board that have gone thru that. Their SO's or Husband's exes LYING to DHS and getting welfare. Saying they weren't getting support. And who does DFS come after to pay back that TANF money? The NCP. When all the while they were paying their CS to the ex, and now they have to pay it TWICE. Why? How can a CP get away with that? How is that right?

I'm not saying the laws are biased against NCP's here. All I'm saying is that there are a different set of rules for CP's and NCP's to go by. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. If my license can be taken away for not paying CS, then by God your license should be able to be taken away for denying me my right to be a parent to my child. If my check can be garnished for not paying CS, then your check should be able to be garnished for a fine for denying me access to my children. If my house can be foreclosed on for not paying CS, then your house should be able to be foreclosed on for visitation interference. That's all I'm saying. Paying CS is no more important than having a relationship with your child. Why can't the government see that?

 

[Boxcarbill]

Boxcar, I hope that I am not ticking you off. I'm not really trying to argue with you. I was just trying to say that the laws do not always work. My SO did try to enforce the order. Like many NCP's here, his efforts to hold his ex accountable through the courts were futile. The possible punishments for refusing visitation do not seem to be as extensive nor as utilized as the punishments for nonpayment of support. Perhaps visitation is just not taken as seriously where I am. I would be interested in hearing what the normal consequences for denial of visitation are where you're from and how often they are used. And believe me, I am well aware that CSE can be incompetent on both sides. But I also believe that the state emphasizes the pursuit of "easy targets" while true deadbeats escape the system. This is perhaps a consequence of the way that the federal incentives are set up and the obsession with increasing collection numbers. I think that you may have me confused with someone who can't see both sides. I can. I am well aware of the deadbeat horror stories that many CP's face. The system can fail on both sides and does frequently. I am just saying, that given the choice of it failing for me when I have my kids or when I don't, I would rather have my kids anyday. That is just my humble opinion. I'm not trying to change your mind on the subject. I'm just stating my point of view. Please be aware that I don't mean to offend. Now that I've said my piece, I think I'll just let it rest.

You are not ticking me off because I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm only trying to separate the chafe from the wheat; the truth from the hyperbole--like an earlier poster stating that two raises were wiped in one increase. That flat cannot happen under Texas law. The obligee, in that particular case, is going to get 25 percent of whatever amount the obligor gets-- whether the increase was ten dollars a month or a thousand dollars a month UNLESS he was paying something like 15 percent prior to the modification and then increasing the child support to what he should have been paying all along, 25 percent statutory guideline, could have possibly wiped out the AMOUNT of the last two raises. But presuming the obligor was paying 25 percent, then twenty five percent of the raises is all the obligee got.

Contempt with the penalty of jail is extremely hard to get in either a child support or visitation because the paper work must be perfectly done according to statute. Otherwise, the contemptor is entitled to court appointed attorney for appeal and will be out of jail based upon error of law. I cannot see a person attempting to do a contempt with jail a punishment being successful without an attorney. It has a high failure rate even with an attorney. But, yes, visitation is enforced by awarding make up weekend and it is done regularly here in Texas and in all counties in which I practice.

Anyway, I find these half disclosure and hyperbole statement run rampant in family law. When you get into court and if both sides are represented by an attorney, the full story is developed and it is very differenct from the half disclosures and slanted facts that friends, and family learn outside the court room and arrive at the conclusion that their loved one got "screwed." They hear something that very much like resembles the unrecognizable story of the McDonald scalding case which bears very little resemblance to the true facts of the case.

Well, good night all. It is way past my bedtime.

 

[tigger22472]

It's sad to say I agree with several points brought up here.

BLCM, You're right... CONTEMPT is CONTEMPT no matter how you look at it.
It's sad to say that the states only help when they are making money off of it.
When I first started receiving states assistance they couldn't help me enough to try and get my CS order enforced. Before that it wasn't there problem and I couldn't get anything done. This month is the LAST month I receieved assistance and what do you know? I haven't been able to get ahold of CSE for over 2 months.
I had the court that placed the order pawn it off.... WAIT... This is YOUR order... YOU enforce it?
What good are court orders if no one follows them and nothing is done to them when they don't?
In my divorce my ex was orderred to pay my lawyer. He didn't.. he was in contempt, correct? The lawyer tried suing me for it. Now legally I've been told this is right. However why did a judge order him to pay if they aren't going to make him?
AN order is and order is an ORDER no matter how you look at it.
The laws here are screwed up in EVERY area.

 

[Whyte Noise]

I know tigger...

Like I said in another thread... my SO has had a modification in with CSE since February. Him and his ex both did their paperwork, the modification motion wsa all done, the new Form 14 done, both my SO and his ex agreed to the new amount.... and it's sitting there in the caseworkers inbox. He called last month to check on it, and she bitched him out! Told him she had 600 other orders waiting to get done too, that they were backlogged from LAST September, and it might be next year before the new amount goes into effect. That if he wanted it sooner, to take it through the Circuit Court.

However....

When he changed jobs (to one making a little more an hour) he called the caseworker and left her a message to call him, he needed to report his new job, yadda yadda yadda. Well, she didn't call him in a few days. His Ex however, called and got in touch with the woman, and within 3 damn days his employer had an IDO on her desk for his CS to be withheld from his paycheck.

Now, this was the same caseworker that said she had 600 cases she had to handle and was backlogged almost a year on, so his downward modification would basically go through when it went through and not before. But, in 3 friggin' days she got that IDO out to start the garnishment?

But, I know why.... because his CS is being lowered from $838 a month down to $356 a month. They're LOSING money, so they're losing FEDERAL money.... so they're not in a hurry to get it done. Of course, with that IDO, that's helping meet the "quota" on collections for the state to get that funding, so guess what they're acting on quicker..?? In the meantime, my SO's CS is still at that $838 a month, they're taking half his paycheck every week, and that doesn't even EQUAL $838 a month so he's STILL getting behind!! His income statements told them how much he makes a month, that's why they're lowering the CS so much anyways, because he's not making half of what he was making 3 years ago when it went into effect. I guess the one good thing about it is that once the mod DOES go thru all the way, it'll be retroactive back to February of this year and any arrears after that will be set at the new lower amount. THEN, the question is going to be.... how long will it take them to get that straight in their books and computers and take off that $500 a month that shouldn't be there?

 

[tigger22472]

I know.. theother and I have had these conversations several times.. and we find it funny because I"m a CP LOL There are people out there like your SO that faithfully pays that support and is an influence in their children's lives and yet the states and courts screw them over. Then in my case mine keeps running from paying...I give them address after address... even gave them a phone number one time... What did they do? call him... then tell me he refused to give useful information... NO KIDDING??? WELL DUH and yet they let it go. Your SO plays by their rules and gets screwed.. mine doesn't and I do. I have to get all the info for them .. they can't search for anything. I have 2 (ok.. maybe more) pet peeves when it comes to situations like mine.
1... When someone says... "well, the state will take care of it. They'll suspend his lisence, they'll get his tax check" ETC...

Yeah maybe when they care enough and I'm too old to remember he owed it to me or for why.

2... When the state makes this big deal how they are going after deadbeats... or when they do catch one by some miricle.. (bet the CP did all the work) and plaster it everywhere making it looking like they did something.

I HONESTLY had a CSE worker tell me 1.5 yrs ago when I asked to have criminal charges filed that it was "a lengthy and drawn out process that turns the goal from payment to punishment"... I told her I didn't care... I wasn't getting anything anyways.

I think the CSE in the county I live in now has given up because the county the order was in isn't cooperating so once again..nothing is getting done...

It's like that everywhere... In family court I know of very few cases where NOONE is screwed... (my husband has one) but if it's not the CP... the NCP... heaven forbid it's the innocent children...

 

[Whyte Noise]

Heh

SO's ex denied him visitations for 3 years. He saw his kids 7 times in 3 years, always at a public restaurant with her there hovering over him.... when he was ordered to have them EOW and 2 weeks in the summer, etc....

Anyways, on the form CSE sent for him to fill out for the mod, they had a place on there where you list # of overnights you have per year. Missouri does give the NCP a small percentage adjustment based on the number of overnights. Well, he's court ordered to have them about 140 nights a year which would have given him a 10% reduction. So, he put that down.

Got the modification and Form 14... and he didn't get credit for those overnights. His ex wife, however, had claimed non-existant child care expenses and got it. (Her mother lives with her. The ex works 11-7, and the girls stay there with her mom while she works. Of course, they are in the bed asleep before she goes in, and aren't even up when she gets home at 7:30 in the AM. Then, they're in school while she sleeps during the day.) My SO asked why he didn't get the percentage off for overnights. The worker said because he didn't have the kids for that amount of overnights, that his ex had put down that she had custody of the kids for 365 nights last year. He said yes, I know. But I'm court ordered to have 140. Caseworker said it doesn't matter what you're court ordered to have, if you don't exercise your visitation rights, you don't get credit for them. SO told him he TRIED to exercise them, but he'd been denied by his ex for 3 years and nothing was ever done about it. Just got an "I'm sorry, can't count it if you didn't exercise them." Then he asked about these "daycare" expenses.... caseworker told him the ex had put down her mother babysat for her while she worked, and she paid her mom X amount a week for that. He told her that's BS, she works 3rd, her mom lives with her, she's not "babysitting", and she's damn sure not getting paid anything. Worker said, "Well, the judge would include daycare costs that would be even higher than what she put down, so you might as well leave it at the figure she already has down here or your support amount could be even higher with the standard daycare costs figured in."

DO WHAT?!?! He can't get overnights credit because he didn't actually have them, but his ex can get childcare credit when there's no "childcare" going on? I told him ya know.... you work 3rd too. On your weekends you have them, I'M the one that's here with them while you're at work and sleeping during the day. I'm going to charge you $150 a weekend to watch them. I'm your "childcare provider" then dammit. LOL Hell, if SHE can do it, why can't he?

 

[tigger22472]

I hear ya... and in the eyes of the law you aren't related... sometimes NOT being married works out.

Before my husband and I were married we lived together for almost 3 years. I contacted legal aid to help me file a visitation modification. I was denied because of his income... I said WAIT... hold up... he's not responsible(although he always has taken care of my children) but they didn't care. That's like now. Although we are married now and I realize that makes a difference... I applied for assistance after my husbands accident. I started getting TANF... now technically that he has SSDI I don't need it.. and I'm not one to live off the system.. I turn everything I'm supposed to in right away. At any rate the caseworker told me that when he got his SSDI I would still receive the TANF due to it goes by MY income only. The only reason I wanted to keep it is that it seems since I've gotten it the state is going after my ex more. They now have an invested interest in it. But now that my husbands been approved they've stopped it. Again to me it's allowing my ex to get off... It's two less kids they need to worry about and who cares what court orders say. My ex got a 14$ a week break from the beginning for visitation and hasn't seen them in 2 years... by his choice... States are more then willing to let someone step in and take over but not give them legal rights...

I just want to state again I don't use the system... or ride it.. They helped me when I needed it I will say that. Even helped me get my CNA license but I'll take it if they will help me in obtaining my ex to make him take some responsibility.

 

[Boxcarbill]

But why should enforcing court ordered child support be any different from enforcing court ordered visitation? That's what I, and a lot of others, don't understand. Contempt is contempt, no matter how you look at it.

Why are there a different set of rules for NCP's that don't pay support than there are for CP's that deny visitation? They're both violating a court order, but the punishment for the non-paying NCP's is more severe than ANY punishment an access-denying CP gets. You can't lose your license for denying visitation. You can't lose your home, have your wages garnished, have liens placed on your property... none of those sanctions apply to CP's. Well, I take that back. Here in Missouri, they do. BUT, try filing in a court here to actually GET those sanctions against that CP, and see what you get. A big, fat, nothing. Missouri also has a law on the books that an NCP, with good cause shown, can petition the court and have the CP give them an accounting of where the CS goes to. Has it ever happened? Not once that I know of. Even an attorney told my SO... Yes, it's there. But getting it enforced is another thing. Then WHY have the damn law in place if you won't even enforce it? Missouri got $4.7 million for enforceing child support orders. They got a measly $100,000 to establish visitation access programs. What makes the damn money more important than a child's relationship with their parent? Because Joe Blow is tired of paying Welfare for single parents? Well, the NCP's are tired of paying BACK the Welfare that their ex's got by lying to get it in the first place, and not one thing happening to the person that commited the Welfare fraud to get it. I can tell you of 3 posters on just this board that have gone thru that. Their SO's or Husband's exes LYING to DHS and getting welfare. Saying they weren't getting support. And who does DFS come after to pay back that TANF money? The NCP. When all the while they were paying their CS to the ex, and now they have to pay it TWICE. Why? How can a CP get away with that? How is that right?

I'm not saying the laws are biased against NCP's here. All I'm saying is that there are a different set of rules for CP's and NCP's to go by. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. If my license can be taken away for not paying CS, then by God your license should be able to be taken away for denying me my right to be a parent to my child. If my check can be garnished for not paying CS, then your check should be able to be garnished for a fine for denying me access to my children. If my house can be foreclosed on for not paying CS, then your house should be able to be foreclosed on for visitation interference. That's all I'm saying. Paying CS is no more important than having a relationship with your child. Why can't the government see that?

My response:

If you really want to know the answers, I can explain them in detail and with sound logical reasoning. But first, you need to focus on which argument that you want me to address because you are changing the argument from why is so much more federal and state money spent to enforce child support than is spent on visitation and the other issue is whether the court enforces child support and visitation differently and, if so, why. These are not the same issues. So let me know which issue that you would like for me to respond to: contempt action in court or the federal monies and enforcement tools used to collect child support. I have no problem addressing both issues but I would prefer to do so in two separate posts so that the readers will recognize the difference in these topics and can separate what we are talking about in their own minds rather than confusing them as though they are the same thing.