State Collection of Child Support

[gatorguy3]

My response:

All I'm saying is, ALL OF THE TIME, both parents have a moral and legal obligation to support their child. ."

I absolutely 100% agree.

I also wish to say, why is it always "WRONG" for someone to withhold support but the same weight is not given to when a parent withhilds/denies visitation?

You see, the way the system stays out of trouble with respect to this issue is by restating over and over again that "support and visitation are two different issues entirely".

But, withhold support and you will go to jail and have your license suspended and more.

But, deny visitation are you are warned over and over again to not do it again.

Seems fair huh?

Money is not everything. Castegate me if you wish however, it is not the "parents" the child will resent, it will be the parent who doesn't encourage "frequent and continuing contact" with the other parent, who will be resented by the child.

Moreover, who is to say the child will benefit from $1000 in support a month when that child doesn't benefit directly...you can speak of electric and water and food and all that jazz, but the fact remains...even with all that considered, that doesn't amount to more than $200 a month for a young child. So, where does the other $800 go? Mom having her nails did, hair did, nightclubs and such, beer, cigarettes???? Can I go on? Those are certainly necessities for the child and are beneficial to the child, right?

Get real ladies. The system needs to be gutted.

 

[linm]

I absolutely 100% agree.

I also wish to say, why is it always "WRONG" for someone to withhold support but the same weight is not given to when a parent withhilds/denies visitation?

You see, the way the system stays out of trouble with respect to this issue is by restating over and over again that "support and visitation are two different issues entirely".

But, withhold support and you will go to jail and have your license suspended and more.

But, deny visitation are you are warned over and over again to not do it again.

Seems fair huh?

Money is not everything. Castegate me if you wish however, it is not the "parents" the child will resent, it will be the parent who doesn't encourage "frequent and continuing contact" with the other parent, who will be resented by the child.

Moreover, who is to say the child will benefit from $1000 in support a month when that child doesn't benefit directly...you can speak of electric and water and food and all that jazz, but the fact remains...even with all that considered, that doesn't amount to more than $200 a month for a young child. So, where does the other $800 go? Mom having her nails did, hair did, nightclubs and such, beer, cigarettes???? Can I go on? Those are certainly necessities for the child and are beneficial to the child, right?

Get real ladies. The system needs to be gutted.

Well, how about this, gatorguy: When I got the Standard Domestic Relations Order after I filed for divorce, it said that one should pay support prior to entry of an order to avoid building up an arrearage. (No mention of any type of penalty or even that, HEY, your kids need to eat in the interim!!)

The same DRO said more than once, bold faced and underlined too, that withholding visitation would be grounds for a change of custody.

So, since you don't have any type of axe to grind but are simply stating the facts as they apply in your situation, um, when is your custody hearing? You DID file for custody, didn't you? Since the support isn't being used to provide for the child; the CP is "having her nails did, hair did, nightclubs and such, beer, cigarettes" and clearly is not giving the care the child needs. So, gatorguy, as a responsible parent, how on earth can you leave your child in the care of someone not only squandering the child's support but what is clearly an unsuitable environment with all the nightclubs, beer and cigarrettes???

Clearly you have the grounds for a change in custody. In the best interests of the child and all.

I'm always looking for ways to save money and would be very greatful if you would share your tips on how to raise a child on $200 per month or less. You could probably get rich if you wrote a book about it. Ok, maybe this forum isn't the proper place and I'll wait for the book, but seriously, sincerely, please, for your own peace of mind, sit down with a piece of paper and figure out what you can reasonably estimate your expenses to be after you're awarded custody. I would be willing to bet quite a lot that if your ex ends up paying you $200 per month in support, you'll complain that barely pays for lunch and school supplies.

And you know what? If that's what the guidelines say is a fair amount of support, then you, as the CP, will just have to deal with it, like all of the other CP's. You'll be the one having to make adjustments or getting a second job to make ends meet. gatorguy, I know in your case the income was imputed and is not what you're actually earning now and that really sux for you. And I'm not being sarcastic. You got burned not because of anything you did, but because of all of the others before you that willfully quit their jobs or got fired or lowered their own salaries if self employed, solely to avoid providing reasonable support for their children.

You got burned for all the idiots that thought they'd be clever and screw over the ex (not really thinking or caring AND KIDS too) and they'd quit their job. You got burned for all the women who claim to be unable to provide support because they're unemployed while their new spouse supports them. Yes, income gets imputed to them now, as if they were earning what they could earn. And right or wrong, that's what happened to you. Don't blame and punish your kids for all the irresponsible parents before you who lied or played games with the system, ok?

 

[Gracie3787]

linm,
you have made it very clear that you can see only one side of CS issues, the side of the CP's. When a person is as closed minded as you are, trying to explain the truth and realities to that person is a waste of time.

You need to learn to look at all sides before forming opinions, but I doubt that you will. The fact that you answered the OP stating the first thing that a NCP can be sent to prison for not paying, coupled with other things you've said, tells me that you are driven more by anger and revenge than you are by wanting kids to get support. You cannot advocate sending a NCP to PRISON for years and at the same time expect that person to pay support while in prison.
I really don't understand the meaning of you quoting what I posted in response on another thread, but I really don't care to know anyway.

For others reading this,

If you are told by DOR that they can't enforce orders or that they will "drop your case" read Fla. statute chapters 61, 88, and 409. And United States Code 42 Title IV-D. you will find that they have to assist you even if you file contempt pro se- no ifs and or buts about it. Make copies of those laws and take them to DOR if you need to. BTW- a friend of mine works for DOR, I told her about this thread and SHE is the one who suggested me making those suggestions.

 

[gatorguy3]

linm,

I mentioned $200 as a point to combat the "the child uses electricity, water, garbage etc" rebuttle everyone seems to use. I am full aware of the fact it takes more. Incidentals and all, I would say a fair amount would be about $600 a month. That should be plenty to even ensure they have new toothbrushes, toothpaste, toilet paper, food, fun stuff, and otherwise.

Now, consider if $700 was the number. That means $350 is the responsibility of mom and $350 the responsibility of dad. Now, assume mom doesn't drink alcohol, smoke, have large pets (dog, cats, etc), etc...

Then there might not be much room for distrust on my part. Assume that she was spending the money on the child. If I hand her $350 then I expect she can show me $700 a month where my son benefitted--and not show me every month where it went to electric, water, sewage, satellite television, cable internet, etc.

If she can provide me with that info, then I would be more than happy to trust her. I didn't trust her with the accounts when we were together. Do you think I am going to trust her now? Especially under the circumstances? Probably not.

Now, don't misunderstand me...she is the mother of my child and I am entirely greatful to her and love her very much because of it. But, this is all about our son--nothing and nobody else.

I do appreciate your comments and I am and have filed for custody. I try to read as much daily as I can so I do not have to rely on my attorney as much as I don't have the funds.

 

[gatorguy3]

and to further Gracie's statement......

The DOR will never go away as long as there is 1cent of arrears. They cannot.

 

[linm]

linm,
you have made it very clear that you can see only one side of CS issues, the side of the CP's. When a person is as closed minded as you are, trying to explain the truth and realities to that person is a waste of time.

You need to learn to look at all sides before forming opinions, but I doubt that you will. The fact that you answered the OP stating the first thing that a NCP can be sent to prison for not paying, coupled with other things you've said, tells me that you are driven more by anger and revenge than you are by wanting kids to get support. You cannot advocate sending a NCP to PRISON for years and at the same time expect that person to pay support while in prison.
I really don't understand the meaning of you quoting what I posted in response on another thread, but I really don't care to know anyway.

For others reading this,

If you are told by DOR that they can't enforce orders or that they will "drop your case" read Fla. statute chapters 61, 88, and 409. And United States Code 42 Title IV-D. you will find that they have to assist you even if you file contempt pro se- no ifs and or buts about it. Make copies of those laws and take them to DOR if you need to. BTW- a friend of mine works for DOR, I told her about this thread and SHE is the one who suggested me making those suggestions.

We finally agree on something, and not just by rephrasing. I freely admit I DO see only ONE side -- the child's side. The child needs support from and contact with both parents. Period.

 

[linm]

linm,

I mentioned $200 as a point to combat the "the child uses electricity, water, garbage etc" rebuttle everyone seems to use. I am full aware of the fact it takes more. Incidentals and all, I would say a fair amount would be about $600 a month. That should be plenty to even ensure they have new toothbrushes, toothpaste, toilet paper, food, fun stuff, and otherwise.

Now, consider if $700 was the number. That means $350 is the responsibility of mom and $350 the responsibility of dad. Now, assume mom doesn't drink alcohol, smoke, have large pets (dog, cats, etc), etc...

Then there might not be much room for distrust on my part. Assume that she was spending the money on the child. If I hand her $350 then I expect she can show me $700 a month where my son benefitted--and not show me every month where it went to electric, water, sewage, satellite television, cable internet, etc.

If she can provide me with that info, then I would be more than happy to trust her. I didn't trust her with the accounts when we were together. Do you think I am going to trust her now? Especially under the circumstances? Probably not.

Now, don't misunderstand me...she is the mother of my child and I am entirely greatful to her and love her very much because of it. But, this is all about our son--nothing and nobody else.

I do appreciate your comments and I am and have filed for custody. I try to read as much daily as I can so I do not have to rely on my attorney as much as I don't have the funds.

The CP should never have to account to you for every cent that is spent. I can understand in your situation you have a history which brings on the mistrust, but, if you are successful in your custody suit, then that shoe will be on the other foot. Know what I mean? You shouldn't have to keep every Dairy Queen receipt to show to the ex what you spent on your children from the CS and what came out of your pocket. And there are going to be "hidden" expenses, like a larger place to live, etc.

BRAVO, KUDOS, and WOW! I hear so often the complaints, complaints, complaints but so rarely see someone that is doing more than complaining. If NCP's really believe things are as bad as they want to claim when complaining about---believe it or not, sometimes less than $200 per month support---then as a parent, they have a duty to sue for custody, for their child's well being. I am so very pleased to have sorta cyber met you, gatorguy. I know it will be tempting to do a sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander thing, but do remember everything you've written here and thought about how important it is to have continuing contact with both parents. When you get custody, be the bigger person and set the great example, no matter how hard it is. But what am I saying? Of course you will.

Best of luck to you and your family, gatorguy.

 

[gatorguy3]

I try not to toss around the "trust me" phrase too often as it is a key for unsuccessful endeavors...however, until I get the chance to show I will be the bigger person then it is a moot point at best.

I have always said, from the door, our son is the most important piece of these "series of unfortunate events" (sorry for the use of that but it is appropriate), when dealing with divorce and have always stated equal contact, equal parenting and equal love from his mother and his father will make him the best person he can be. He gets the love part but doesn't get the consideration and compassion from both. I know his mother loves him dearly but she has all but told me I am "insignificant" to his growth. I don't want vindication. I want what is truly best for him. I do cherish him so.

 

[gatorguy3]

linm,

I do also understand what you are saying about the support and accounting for every dime. It's really not about every dime and I would have no problem showing if the "shoe was on the other foot."

I am saying, that in the instance of another post where the mother said she was sending the little girl with clothing that was too small, and buttons not staying buttoned, the child might need some different play clothes. Generic childrens clothes are not that expensive.

And, maybe there is a new movie out or the circus is in town or something. Make an effort to let the child(ren) enjoy themselves. They cannot possibly be expected to play around the house all the time.

As a child, I didn't see much outside of a four street trailor park. Yes, we were in a town that had an annual Festival that we went to each year, but because of circumstances, I didn't see much or do much outside that. I think it is extremely important for a child to experience things as a child. Besides, it is so fun as an adult to see that a child is enjoying themselves as much as they do. The first time I took my son to the zoo, OMG...that was just the greatest experience I could have enjoyed as a parent--especially since he so loves animals.

 

[Whyte Noise]

I'm sorry, but I have to throw my $.02 in here.

Anyone that is about to lose everything they have because CS isn't being paid has a bigger problem than just the CS not being paid. Do they not work? Do they not have an income? In extreme circumstances only should a CP get anywhere even close to being in that dire of straights. Disability, job layoff, inability to find work.... sure. I can see where they're totally dependant on the CS being the only income short term. But no other time. I'm sorry, but that's the way I see it. Truth be told, even with a disability you can have an income coming into the household with SSI or SSDI. With SSDI you even get monetary benefits for the child(ren) if you meet the requirements. And by "inability to find work" I mean... actively seeking work on a daily basis and no one hiring. Not just sitting at home not even looking for work.

And before anyone says anything I AM on both sides of the fence. I'm a CP to one child, and the NCP to my other 2. My ex and I share custody. Before this year though, I was an NCP to all 3 of them.

In our current custody order, neither parent is ordered to pay CS to the other. Why? Because each of us is to provide 100% for the child(ren) we have custody of. Well, OK... we do split uninsured medical expenses 50/50, but it's my responsibility to pay 100% for insurance on my oldest daughter (who I have custody of) and it's my ex's responsibility to pay 100% for insurance on our other 2 children that he has custody of. It's each parent's responsibilty to support the children with us. I don't depend on him, he doesn't depend on me. You should be financially able to provide for a child on your own. You shouldn't NEED help. You should be responsible.

My current husband has his support order done in Missouri as well. He lost his job shortly after the order was made because the company was laying off. It was no fault of his own. Did the court or CSE care? Of course not. He was working at jobs making HALF of what his support order was set on, they were taking 50% of his net pay every paycheck, and he was still going in arrears because it wasn't enough to meet the ordered CS amount. He brought home $92 a week. He did that for 2 years before he finally got his day in court and got his CS modified. Oh, he didn't wait 2 years to file... it took them 2 years to hear it AFTER he filed. And believe me, he didn't get that 2 years of "overpayment" back either once the judge ruled that it was retroactive back to the date of filing. They just put that towards the "arrears" he'd built up because he couldn't meet the total CS obligation every month.

If it weren't for me, my husband would have been living under a bridge in a cardboard box. You tell me if YOU could live on $92 a week. Pay rent (which would be more than $400 a month by itself), buy food, pay electric... not counting the car it takes to go back and forth to work to make the money to pay the CS. I agree that the children need to be supported monetarily, but at what cost to the parent? Seriously? Should we just put an NCP into poverty? Let them live in a cardboard box under a bridge and then say they can't see their kids because they don't have a stable home environment to take the children to? And why is it that an NCP is forced to work to support the child, yet a CP isn't? Sure, they're imputed income but that's not anywhere near the same. If an NCP doesn't work and pay their CS they can go to jail. What about a CP that doesn't work and doesn't support their child monetarily either? Why aren't they put in jail as well? After all, they're shirking their responsibility to provide for the child too, aren't they? Yes... but they can get on welfare.

Get a better job to pay your court ordered CS? Easy to say when you haven't been in the situation yourself. My husband was making $13 an hour at a factory when his CS was set. After the lay off he found a job for $5.15 an hour and it was only part time. Not because that's all he wanted, but because that's all that was available in the area and it took weeks of searching for that job to open up. Yeah, he had the "ability" to make $13 an hour. Of course, he'd been there for 3 years too. He couldn't just go to another factory and say, "I gotta have $13 an hour because that's what I was making at the other place". It doesn't work that way. They start you out at $6 an hour because you're a "new hire". You have to work your way up the payscale there, just like he did at the old job. And he put in applications at every factory around. They weren't doing any hiring at that time.

Find a second job? Kind of hard to do when it takes you weeks to find a FIRST job becuase no one is hiring. You can't make a company hire you when there's no positions to be filled.

Live cheaper? You can't live much cheaper than $92 a week folks. Unless, of course, we go back to the cardboard box under the bridge scenario.

The CP's that come into the CSE office are there because their ex's don't pay, true. So, your experience with what you see IS going to be that most NCP's don't pay. That's all you see with your clients... NCP's that don't pay. Of course your perception is going to be a bit off. Do you realize that according to the census bureau figures for 2002 (the last year data is available), 73.9% of NCP's ordered to pay child support actually paid? 44.8% of those that were paying paid the FULL amount of CS ordered. That leaves 29.1% that weren't paying the total amount the court ordered. Not necessarily because they didn't want to, but because they couldn't afford it. So, the census bureau itself blows the theory that most NCP's don't pay a dime out of the water. Almost 3/4 of those ordered (73.9%, remember) DO pay even if it's not the full amount.

As for accounting for where the CS goes... I think that's an excellent idea in some cases. As an example: In July my husband's ex got $1,200 in CS. When the children came to us the first weekend of August for visitation, guess who had to buy their school supplies and school clothes? Yeah... we did. His ex hadn't bought one single thing for the start of school. No paper, no pencils, no clothes. Matter of fact, she sent their school supply lists WITH THEM to our house! We asked the girls if they'd gotten new school clothes yet... the "new" clothes they'd gotten were hand-me-downs from their cousin, which were too big anyways. Now... you tell me where that $1,200 in CS went to provide for those children? And please, don't say rent, utilities, food... I know where this woman lives and what her bills are. It's in small town rural Missouri (population in her town, 1400)... not St. Louis. She makes good money at her job. So, why weren't school supplies and clothes bought with part of the $1,200 in CS she got in July? Her story is the money went on bills. She doesn't have $1,200 a month worth of bills, I know this for a fact because of her financial affidavit that was with the CS modification. So I went out and spent $600 myself on the girls for supplies and clothes. No, my husband didn't because he wasn't even bringing home that much money a month from his job after taxes and CS were taken out. The point is... out of $1,200 in CS she didn't provide one thing for those children. Not even one pencil. She was "waiting for the free stuff from the church" she said. She said "YOU can go and pay for that stuff, I'm not". And yeah... she actually said that to him when he called her about it. When the NCP pays CS and the kids don't even have school supplies, school clothes, decent clothes to wear, a coat for the winter... then yeah. Show me where that money went to because it's pretty damn obcious that it's NOT going towards the children where it's supposed to.

 

[gatorguy3]

the best question out of that entire writing, MissouriGal, is the question of why is the NCP held accountable and the CP is not?

I wish I knew the answer to that. NCP's are put into poverty but for what reason?

The hearing officer told me the other day that if I had $5 for food that is $5 I should be giving to my ex. She also asked me if I were to sell everything I had, how much would I get. I told her all I had was some furniture, a bed, dresser and clothes...So, I told her $300 bucks at yardsale prices.

The point is...what would I do if I didn't have all these things? Where would my son sleep and play?

It really doesn't make sense.

 

[Whyte Noise]

gatorguy,

Once you're around long enough, you'll see that a lot of my posts tend to be "wordy".

I realize that CP's get screwed over too when an NCP doesn't pay. I know that. I'm not disputing that. It just really gets me to see the attitude of, "who cares about the NCP. They owe! So they HAVE to pay!".

NCP doesn't have a job, doesn't pay support = Go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass "Go", do not collect $200. (Although, that's $200 more they could be putting on that CS payment... )

CP doesn't have a job, doesn't monetarily support the child = No big deal. CP isn't required to have to work like an NCP is. No sanctions for CP (other than court imputing income to do the CS calculations).

Well, ya know what? "I" worry about the NCP. My case is a bit different, I know... but what if it weren't? Where would I sleep? How would I eat? How would I provide a roof over the head of the child I have with me? How could I get insurance for my child that's diabetic, has kidney disease, has an enlarged liver, and is on 3 different meds a day for it, including one med that's right at $300 a month? Should my ex's 3rd child suffer too? Or perhaps even die?

Every case isn't as cut and dried as the "guidelines" would like for it to be. I'm sorry, but it's not. And... how many states have bills pending because of unconstitutional child support guidelines now? How many judges don't even FOLLOW the guidelines already in place? I know the judge in my original divorce case didn't. The guidelines are just that, guidelines. They aren't "set in stone" items that HAVE to be followed to the letter.

 

[gatorguy3]

Well, my ex and I only have a temporary order in place concerning custody/visitation. She wanted it in writing because she felt I would do what she did--run off with our son without notice.

She didn't work the entire time we were together. It was a joint decision in the beginning and then became so excuse prone that I gave up. In light of not working and really having no other work experience than waitressing, she took off with 3 children to raise on her own.

She didn't work the first 7 months after leaving. She filed for Welfare shortly after leaving. She just so happened to be intellegent enough to take along several new checkbooks to a joint account we had. The interesting part is the account had no money in it and she knew it. But, that didn't stop her from writing checks for almost 6 months. Keep in mind not one check cleared.

Well, she was approved for Welfare (pay close attention to this point)...based entirely on the checking account she overdrew with NSF fees. The negative balance consisted entirely of NSF fees. She was living with her parents...children were sleeping on the couch/floor/ or otherwise.

She finally got a job, just 1 week before the scheduled hearing scheduled by the Department of Revenue, since she was getting Welfare. She had her state appointed attorney and I had nobody. And I definitely didn't have any money.

The state based the support 90% on me and 10% on her contribution as she didn't have any proof of income at the time. How convenient that was.

I was given no other choice than to step down out of a higher paying position due to lack of performance following her running off with my son. If I didn't step down they would have demoted me. So then, I was making about 1/4th of what I made during the previous year. However, the court seen fit to base my support payment on the previous years' income. I informed the judge it would not happen out of what I was making and he said simply that he would take it under advisement. A week later, I received the paperwork stating I would pay $600 a month.

For over a year and a half now, my attorney has attempted hearing after hearing to have the support modified. Each time we have a hearing set, during the hearing they say there is nothing on the docket for modifying the support. So, the impute other damages on me and find me in contempt and threaten jail. I currently have 6 months hanging over my head. I guess I will find out in a few days how that goes.

Anyway, I am trying to do the right thing. I am finishing my degree and going into Politics. I am not shying away from my responsibility and I want the absolute best for our son. His smile and love is what makes everything worth the time I spend.

His mother...well, I think she is on a cloud somewhere so high up that she may suffocate soon from lack of oxygen to the brain.

 

[linm]

I'm sorry, but I have to throw my $.02 in here.
QUOTE]

Please allow me to preface my remarks by saying that I think you presented a very well reasoned and sincere posting and that I agree with many of the points you raised. I am responding only to bring up some things you may not have considered; to answer questions raised; and maybe to raise a few questions.

MissouriGal wrote:

Anyone that is about to lose everything they have because CS isn't being paid has a bigger problem than just the CS not being paid. Do they not work? Do they not have an income? In extreme circumstances only should a CP get anywhere even close to being in that dire of straights. Disability, job layoff, inability to find work.... sure. I can see where they're totally dependant on the CS being the only income short term. But no other time. I'm sorry, but that's the way I see it. Truth be told, even with a disability you can have an income coming into the household with SSI or SSDI. With SSDI you even get monetary benefits for the child(ren) if you meet the requirements. And by "inability to find work" I mean... actively seeking work on a daily basis and no one hiring. Not just sitting at home not even looking for work.

My Response:

In the case I mentioned, the CP is disabled. The CP is in the process of qualifying for disability but that takes years.

Not everyone is able to provide the full support of their children, nor should they have to, as it is the law. You're not considering the CP that does work 40 or even more hours per week but does not have the education or skills to command a salary that would provide a reasonable lifestyle for their children without support from the NCP. One parent I worked with has a grant waiting to go to nursing school and would be able to improve the lifestyle of the family except the CP is working three menial labor jobs, just to put food on the table and a roof over their heads, so can't take advantage of the grant. What makes this situation even worse is that the NCP does have the ability to pay. After many years of an average salary exceeding $60k per year, suddenly the pay went to almost nothing. Even the minimal support ordered based on the lowered income is not paid. 13 contempt hearings in the last three years finally resulted in purge payment of less than 10% of the arrearages due.

Maybe I'm the one that is odd, but it seems to me that most of the people I know base their bills and lifestyle on their total income. If that income includes child support, it's going to be factored in and if that income suddenly stops coming, it's going to be a problem. Yes, it's wise to put a bit back each month, plan for one's retirement, etc. but not everyone, single or married, is in a position to do this to any large degree and some barely make ends meet each month.

MissouriGal wrote:

And before anyone says anything I AM on both sides of the fence. I'm a CP to one child, and the NCP to my other 2. My ex and I share custody. Before this year though, I was an NCP to all 3 of them.

In our current custody order, neither parent is ordered to pay CS to the other. Why? Because each of us is to provide 100% for the child(ren) we have custody of. Well, OK... we do split uninsured medical expenses 50/50, but it's my responsibility to pay 100% for insurance on my oldest daughter (who I have custody of) and it's my ex's responsibility to pay 100% for insurance on our other 2 children that he has custody of. It's each parent's responsibilty to support the children with us. I don't depend on him, he doesn't depend on me. You should be financially able to provide for a child on your own. You shouldn't NEED help. You should be responsible.

My Response:

Once again, you're assuming irresponsibility on the part of the CP. In your particular case, if I understand correctly, you and your ex have similar incomes and contribute similar amounts to the support of the three children. So in reality, neither parent has the full burden. So it's not really exactly fair to say one shouldn't need help, as you both supply help to the other, right? Suppose your ex were to suddenly lose his job or become disabled. Would you be able to assume the full burden of supporting all three of your children? Or vice versa, would he? If so, congratulations, and you are certainly a cut above many of us. Many people do not make plans for how they will support the children on their own prior to conception. Many assume, (thankfully sometimes rightly), that their spouse will remain part of the household and then they buy life insurances policies naming each other as beneficiaries. Would that it were otherwise, but on the other hand, if planning for an eventual divorce, one shouldn't be considering conceiving. And again, it is the law that both parents provide support, which, in effect, both you and your ex do.

MissouriGal wrote:

My current husband has his support order done in Missouri as well. He lost his job shortly after the order was made because the company was laying off. It was no fault of his own. Did the court or CSE care? Of course not. He was working at jobs making HALF of what his support order was set on, they were taking 50% of his net pay every paycheck, and he was still going in arrears because it wasn't enough to meet the ordered CS amount. He brought home $92 a week. He did that for 2 years before he finally got his day in court and got his CS modified. Oh, he didn't wait 2 years to file... it took them 2 years to hear it AFTER he filed.

My Response:

Sounds like maybe you should be demanding more judges in Missouri. I know in Florida, we have a shortage, but I have yet to run into the case that took two years to be heard. That is wrong on so many levels and both sides of the fence. Seriously, you have a major problem there and no joke intended, you should consider alerting the media.

MissouriGal wrote:

And believe me, he didn't get that 2 years of "overpayment" back either once the judge ruled that it was retroactive back to the date of filing. They just put that towards the "arrears" he'd built up because he couldn't meet the total CS obligation every month.

My Response:

Ok, I'm not following the math here. He wasn't able to pay in full at the old rate so arrearages accumulated. After the unconscionable delay, the support was reduced to what it should have been for the two years, retroactive to the date of filing, in effect, nullifying any arrears. Is that right? Are you saying that for two years he actually paid more than was eventually ordered as the new support amount but the overpayment was applied to what was found to be nonexistent arrearages? How does that work?

MissouriGal wrote:

If it weren't for me, my husband would have been living under a bridge in a cardboard box. You tell me if YOU could live on $92 a week. Pay rent (which would be more than $400 a month by itself), buy food, pay electric... not counting the car it takes to go back and forth to work to make the money to pay the CS.

My Response:

Yes, if I had to, I could. If I had no children living with me, well, then I, personally, would have a couple of extra bedrooms I'd have to rent out. Not my first choice, but, rather than lose the house? As for the car, well, in my area there is public transportation. I couldn't afford a car on only $92 per week. If for some reason I was not able to live on $92 per week, then I'd have to find another source of income or another way to reduce my living expenses, maybe by moving in with a family member until my finances improved. I'm well familiar with factory layoffs and know many people who had to relocate to find work. We all do what we have to do to get by. And it appears your husband was also able to survive it with help from someone else, in this case, you.

 

[linm]

I'm sorry, but I have to throw my $.02 in here.
QUOTE]

MissouriGal wrote:

I agree that the children need to be supported monetarily, but at what cost to the parent? Seriously? Should we just put an NCP into poverty? Let them live in a cardboard box under a bridge and then say they can't see their kids because they don't have a stable home environment to take the children to?

My Response:

I very strongly believe a continuing relationship with the NCP should be encouraged by the CP. Whatever accomodations are necessary should be made to give every child the opportunity to have a relationship with both parents. I don't think most NCP's would want to take their child to a cardboard box under a bridge and perhaps another arrangement could be made to accomplish time sharing without exposing the children to the box. (It was your example, not mine.)

In cases where the NCP is in poverty, the odds are good the children are also in poverty. In my opinion, the children's needs should come first. Hypothetically speaking, if for some reason, there was only food for one in your home, who gets it? Your child, of course. And again, shoe on the other food, suppose he suddenly had custody of his children. How would he have been able to provide them with a place to live, clothing, food, basic necessities on only $184 per week? Wouldn't he have NEEDED help? For many people, both CP and NCP alike, that's not much less than the best they're likely to ever earn.

MissouriGal wrote:

And why is it that an NCP is forced to work to support the child, yet a CP isn't? Sure, they're imputed income but that's not anywhere near the same. If an NCP doesn't work and pay their CS they can go to jail. What about a CP that doesn't work and doesn't support their child monetarily either? Why aren't they put in jail as well? After all, they're shirking their responsibility to provide for the child too, aren't they? Yes... but they can get on welfare.

My Response:

I'm not familiar with the welfare system and so can't really speak to it. However, my understanding is that there are limits, at least in this state, on the amount of time one can collect. And I am also of the belief that here, unless there are children under 5, there must be some sort of education or training process going on to collect support. But I could be 100% wrong on this, maybe that was a proposal that never passed and since it doesn't affect me, I didn't really pay attention.

While I can't agree that anyone should be compelled to work, including the NCP, under the condition they are able to meet their obligations by other means, I 100% agree with you that if the NCP can prove the CP does not contribute their ordered share of support, they should face the same penalites as the NCP. The trick would be in proving it. CP's that make a living off child support make me just as ill as everyone else. If you ever run into a successful case like that, in any state, please let me know. PROVING it would be very, very hard. This clearly isn't going to be true in all cases, but just as a hypothetical: CP and doesn't earn a paycheck but instead, homeschools the children, obviates the necessity of supervision after school and summers, takes care of the home and the children. One couldn't really say that parent contributes nothing to the children, just as in the in tact family when one parent doesn't work, we don't accuse them of not contributing.

MissouriGal wrote:

Get a better job to pay your court ordered CS? Easy to say when you haven't been in the situation yourself. My husband was making $13 an hour at a factory when his CS was set. After the lay off he found a job for $5.15 an hour and it was only part time. Not because that's all he wanted, but because that's all that was available in the area and it took weeks of searching for that job to open up. Yeah, he had the "ability" to make $13 an hour. Of course, he'd been there for 3 years too. He couldn't just go to another factory and say, "I gotta have $13 an hour because that's what I was making at the other place". It doesn't work that way. They start you out at $6 an hour because you're a "new hire". You have to work your way up the payscale there, just like he did at the old job. And he put in applications at every factory around. They weren't doing any hiring at that time.

Find a second job? Kind of hard to do when it takes you weeks to find a FIRST job becuase no one is hiring. You can't make a company hire you when there's no positions to be filled.

My Response:

If you can't make a living, even for yourself, where you're at, you may have to consider relocating or even changing fields. What if you had the only gas station on Mackinac Island? I mean before they stopped letting people have cars on the island. You can't make people buy gas from you for cars they don't have anymore and the gas you sell for the lawnmowers just isn't paying the bills. What do you do?? Move into a cardboard box??

MissouriGal wrote:

Live cheaper? You can't live much cheaper than $92 a week folks. Unless, of course, we go back to the cardboard box under the bridge scenario.

My Response:

Lots of people have had to move in with a family member for a time until they were able to get their finances in order. It's no one's first choice, but sometimes it's the only choice. Rather than deprive my kids?