State Collection of Child Support

[linm]

to Gracie3787 part 1


Gracie, to answer your questions:

Gracie3787 wrote:

In a response to one of my posts you wrote that we finally agree on something. You and I agree on the same goal-that children should be supported by both parents, what we disagree on is the path that should be taken to accomplish that goal.

My Response:

First of all, I don't think you can speak for me as to what I feel is an appropriate or an inappropriate method of collection. I will admit that, in my opinion, it is not a valid argument to say, for example, suspension of a professional license would render the NCP unable to work and unable to provide support, because, the problem here is that the NCP wasn't providing support prior to suspension either. The way our system is set up, the NCP has plenty of opportunity to correct the situation prior to implementation of any of the more drastic enforcement tools. That being said, assuming the NCP is not paying voluntarily, exactly what path should be taken to collect support, Gracie3787?

Gracie3787 asked:

What about a NCP who is waiting to qualify for disability, do you think that SSA will approve them right away? No, it doesn't work that way, it takes a NCP as long to qualify as it does for a CP to qualify. Maybe I'm wrong, but I get the impression that you believe that it is okay for a CP to not be able to support kids due to disability, but you have no understanding of a NCP's inability to pay support while waiting for disability.

My Response:

How you can infer this is my position is beyond me. Each parent has a duty to provide support for their children, whether or not they are disabled. Most disability benefits are not exempt from collection. I don't think there is any court in the land that would punish the NCP for nonpayment while disabled and awaiting benefits. I have seen cases where a lengthy, but temporary, a month or so, illness, was an adequate defense against contempt charges.

It is my understanding that when finally approved, the NCP will get arrearages back to the date of filing. Shouldn't the children receive some of that? In the meantime, if the NCP truly has no income or assets, the CP will just have to bear the burden alone, and if that means the CP can no longer afford a car, they'll have to use public transportation where available and maybe walking when it's not. (I mention that because I see a girl in her twenties walking 2.5 miles to work on a regular basis. If I'm heading out, I give her a ride.) And as I mentioned to MissouriGal, please consider what would happen if the disabled NCP were suddenly confronted with custody. Whatever provides the living expenses for the NCP would necessarily have to incorporate the children into the equation, wouldn't it?

And let's not forget the modification hearing to reduce the support based on the new income level. In the disabled NCP scenario, there is no paycheck from which to withhold wages, as was the unfortunate case with MissouriGal's spouse. So even if modification takes some time, (surely not two years in Florida), there is no harm to the NCP and all child support arrearages can be made up when the disability arrearage check arrives. However, during the interim, I'm going to assume the NCP is eating regularly and has a place to live. That's not always true when child support stops. Some families do end up homeless when the full burden of supporting multiple children is suddenly thrust upon them. When forced to choose between food for one's children and the rent payment, well, for me, at least, and probably most CP's, the choice is clear. While it has never happened to my children, there but for the grace of God, you know? What if I did not have the resources to provide for my children during the interim, as is the case in so many families? You seem to worry quite a bit about the NCP's basic needs being met, but you do not answer the question of how the children's needs are met when a choice must be made between the NCP's needs and the children's.

However, the original point of the story regarding the CP was to explain to MissouriGal why someone may be in 'on the verge of losing everything' due to nonsupport. DESPITE THE DISABILITY AND THE LONG WAIT FOR DISABILITY INCOME, THE CP MUST FIND A WAY TO PROVIDE FOOD AND BASIC NECESSITIES FOR THE CHILDREN. Why shouldn't the NCP bear an equal burden, even if also disabled? In the case I mentioned, the CP was selling possessions, borrowing money, and doing several other things to provide food for the children. Again, why should this NCP be excused from providing any support, even if they are also having financial difficulties? The CP isn't similarly excused. The CP can't tell the children, "well, I had a lot of bills this month and can't buy any food. I'll buy a little extra food for the next three months to make it up." "Gee kids, sorry, I just took a big pay cut and won't be able to buy any food at all until I can find better paying job."

Gracie3787 asked:

Not all NCPs live in areas with public transpotation. our area doesn't have it. What should a NCP do if they work 15 to 20 miles from home? Walk? Getting a ride with co workers isn't always easy or reliable. Cab fare, on $92 a week? If a NCP can't afford a car on that, how could they pay for cab fare?If a NCP loses thier job because they can't get to work to pay support, please explain to me how that would be in the childrens' best interests??

My Response:

Here, I go back to my Mackinac Island analogy. After the island bans cars and the only gas being sold is for lawn mowers, the station owner is going to have to choose between the cardboard box idea; moving the station to a better location; changing the products sold; or getting a job at the Grand Hotel. If you can't afford to live where you are, then you should consider moving. We all do what we have to do to get by. Your posts seem to indicate if the NCP cannot easily afford child support without compromising their lifestyle, they shouldn't have to pay and the system, not to mention the CP, is being punitive for demanding they do. I'll grant you some lifestyles are easier to adjust than others but for the person downsizing from a Lexus to an Escort, it seems just as impossible to really be able to "afford" those child support payments. I don't care who you are or what your financial situation is, you can do SOMETHING to help support your child. What bill do you have that is more important than providing support for your child? Your electric bill? What about the child's electric bill? Who pays that? Your medical bills? What about the child's medical bills? And let me assure you, in every case I know of, the doctor or hospital can better afford to wait for payment than can the child.

Gracie3787 asked:

What about the cases where the CP earns a whole lot more than NCP? Should the NCP be pushed into poverty by paying a large amount of support to a CP who isn't anywhere near poverty?

My Response:

If the CP earns a whole lot more than the NCP, the child support amount will more than likely be less than if the NCP is the main bread winner. Are you really suggesting here that the child, by having needs, is pushing their parent into poverty and it's not the choices the NCP has made throughout their life? We all have to take responsibility for our actions, even if we are the NCP. If someone has to move to a less savory part of town for financial reasons, in your opinion, should it be the adult NCP, or the child, who was given no say in any of the parents' collective actions? Is your solution that, because the CP has made different choices in their life and has more to show for it, the NCP should be relieved of any responsibility??

 

[linm]

To Gracie3787 part 2


Gracie3787 asked:

Yes, those cases may be unusual, but they do exist, here is an example- The taxpayers have never had to assist NCP and CP's kids, even during the few times that NCP didn't pay support. Thier children are all grown, CP has 3 more kids(not NCP's) and huge income. NCP is ordered to pay arrears at 50% of very small income- result- Taxpayers are now assisting NCP because NCP is in poverty. Is that right or fair? Please explain to me how that works to anyones best interests??

My response:

I've done a search of this site using the keywords "bankruptcy" and "child support." This led me to finding some information helpful to me. (Thanks to those who started and responded in those threads.) Along the way, I skimmed many threads that had the keywords but didn't shed any light on the particular problem I was attempting to address. So, I am up front in admitting I didn't study these posts and am sure I'm going to confuse some of the details, but I think I read about the story to which you refer. Weren't the arrearages something like $20,000? If that amount is correct and the arrearages have still not been paid, yet the children are adults, it doesn't really appear that nonsupport was a rare thing. And wasn't the disability suffered long after the accumulation of those arrearages?

Before we even get to the part about 50% of income NOW, I'd like to know over what period of time those arrearages accumulated and why they accumulated, as the disability occurred, what? Within the last year? Wasn't there some jail time involved in this case, too? And after how many months, (or was it years?), of nonpayment was the NCP either briefly incarcerated or nearly so? As I recall, 'by the children's choice,' there was not any contact with with the NCP. Is that correct? If so, then there was certainly no help other than the ordered support, which appears to have been paid closer to rarely than regularly. Not even help with babysitting, to lessen the cost to the CP.

This may be a different story, but the one I'm thinking of involved the DOR, and if so, that is aid from the state. Didn't the CP have financial problems severe enough to end up in bankruptcy? That's quite different from "huge income" and is at odds with 'no help from taxpayers to CP.' Bankruptcy affects all consumers, whether or not they pay taxes. And now that the NCP is finally being required to pay something, wasn't the new spouse of the NCP trying to find some vindictive way to punish the ex spouse with some sort of federal fraud charge based on the new spouse's belief the ex spouse didn't fully report income in the bankruptcy? I question how the new spouse knows more about the actual income of the ex spouse than does the bankruptcy trustee who is charged to determine such things and routinely requires paycheck stubs and bank records before granting discharge, even in a no asset case. We all know ordered doesn't mean received, so that can't be it. Did the possibility that the other payor also got a bit behind and on advice of counsel, the amount claimed as income was the average received over the course of the prior year, even occur to the new spouse? As someone who wanted nothing more than petty vengence on the CP who dared demand the NCP provide support for his children, probably not. Is that right or fair?

The new spouse also complained that as the children are now adults, they are not going to benefit from the support. How does the new spouse know that? For things to really be "right or fair," the CP should have the same LUXURY to not provide support if it's inconvenient. For things to be "right or fair," would require the impossibility of the CP having a time machine in order to go back after finally receiving the "arrearages," years after the support was due, and provide the things the children did without when the NCP chose to not live up to their legal and moral obligation to provide support. "Good news, Johnny. The support finally arrived. You get to go on that second grade field trip you missed, after all. And take John Jr. with you!" "Susie, do you remember when you were nine years old and broke that tooth? Good news! I finally got some arrearages and now you're not going to have to suffer with that tooth for ten days until I get another paycheck!" Ridiculous, I agree; but I am hopeful it is illustrative as well.

Is it right or fair for the NCP to ignore the support obligation and leave the full burden to the CP for, I suspect, years? In the situation I'm thinking of, there was not even visitation, so how does the NCP have any idea whatsoever what those children needed and what they did without because of the CHOICE to refuse support and contact? Is the NCP certain those children never went to bed hungry or never had their electric service suspended due to nonpayment? How could the NCP know this since he had NO CONTACT. (Did these children ever receive so much as a birthday card from their father?) Say it was by the children's choice if you like, and that sure sounds good, but anyone that gives it half a thought knows that the children cannot make that choice and should not be allowed to. So, in reality, it was the NCP that totally rejected the right to have a relationship with the children. No contact, no support. And you want me to feel sorry for the NCP now that the NCP is ALSO having a tough time? Where was NCP's concern for the children during the years disability wasn't an issue? That the NCP is still paying arrears past the age of maturity of his children should make the debt disappear? So, folks, regardless of what your income was during the interim, if you can shirk your responsibility until your children turn 18, you get a 'get out of support free' card? And if that's not it, what exactly is your solution for this little problem?

No contact, no support; isn't that abandonment? If this were my story, I'd be ashamed to tell it. The NCP should contact the children, even though they're likely to hang up on him, and should keep doing it, especially because of his ill health. Not for his sake, but for theirs. I know what I've seen, but truly cannot imagine how it must feel to be abandoned by one's parent. If the ex spouse made contact difficult, or even tortuous, well, aren't the children worth it? Doesn't the NCP have a moral obligation to provide time, teaching, etc. to their child in addition to their legal obligation to provide monetary support?

Gracie3787 wrote:

Although gatorguy has some valid points, I don't think you realize that he admits that he isn't paying CS, so I, personally, wouldn't be using him as a good example (custody yes, support, no).

My Response:

Good eye, Gracie, I absolutely did not catch that in this thread and I have not been following anything other than responses to my posts. (Cos they pop up in my email.) Thank you for the heads up. My feelings about abandonment of one's children, I certainly hope, have been made very clear. SHAME ON ANYONE THAT DOESN'T SUPPORT THEIR CHILDREN, be they NCP or CP. I'll grant you that food isn't an issue in every case, but if support isn't paid, there are things the child would have had and now didn't or doesn't.

The questions raised herein are rhetorical but I hope you and others give them some thought. As I said, I'm not really following threads and do not have the time to continue to point out the needs of the children v. the needs of the NCP to those who, I suspect, too often have little or no contact with their children. That's the only explanation I could come up with for seeing the children as a bill instead of a privilege.

Gracie3787 wrote:

I won't argue with you, we each have our own ways of viewing CS issues, but things are never cut and dried and each case should be based on its own individual facts/circumstances, period.

My Response:

And they are; in family court, by an impartial judge with no stake in the case, based on laws passed by legislators who also have no stake in the case. Yes, there are cracks, but I will always believe an adult NCP has a lot better shot at avoiding them or pulling themself out of one, than does a child that slips through the cracks.

 

[linm]

To All

To all: I believe I have made my opinions very clear and hope the post to Gracie3787 can serve as a response to any other posts in this thread. I did figure out how to "unsubscribe." Reading everyone's thoughts and seeing "the other side" has been, well, for lack of a better word, "enlightening," and I hope I have played devil's advocate well enough to at least provoke some thought. Thank you for sharing your stories, ideas and opinions with me. I truly just do not have the time to spend rehashing issues. Especially while there is so much I'm trying to do about them.

Almost without exception, the posters I have seen here seem to be very sincere, are trying to do the right things for their children and are trying to help others and for that, I applaud all of you. I, too, do volunteer work in my community and respect anyone that takes time out of their week for similar efforts. Anyone that feels the system is unfair, whether CP or NCP, has a duty as a citizen to work to change it and I encourage all of you to do it. You have a lot to say and it should be heard. Just please, when saying it, remember to put the children first, ok? You'll get a lot farther.

Best of luck to all.