State Collection of Child Support

[linm]

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

MissouriGal wrote:

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.

My Response:

I'm not sure where you got those figures, national, state or whatever, but as a taxpayer, I certainly hope they're national and improving. As a Floridian, well, sorry folks, for bringing down the national average. I'm not sure where you got the idea that anyone believes, "most NCP's don't pay a dime." I, for one, most certainly hope that isn't true. Many NCP's pay in full, on time, and above the ordered amount with direct contributions. I know several NCP's and have one in my family. Without exception, they all provide and provide well for their children. The figure I quoted was from the state of Florida's website and is for cases they're involved in, as it was my understanding was the case with the OP, who, I submit, remains one of the few. To my knowledge, the state does not monitor all cases. Not all payments are made through the state, many are paid directly to the NCP, or, as in your case, 'bartered,' so to speak, so there would be no way for the state to track them.

And just for the record, I have yet to be involved in a case where the NCP was a minimum wage earner or anywhere near it. Almost all held professional licenses and most self employed or employed by family. The average person, drawing a regular paycheck from a non-family employer, as you know, generally has support withheld from paycheck and forwarded to the state for disbursement for the benefit of the children. Makes things so much easier for everyone, granted, so long as circumstances do not dramatically change. (Again, it is unconscionable the delay in Missouri. In my area, one can usually get a hearing within a couple of months. An emergency hearing within weeks.) And this would probably account for the highest percentage of NCP's, although I've never had a reason to check that figure.

MissouriGal wrote:

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.

My Response:

You should consider following gatorguy's good example and sue for custody. If the child's needs are not being met, the parent has an obligation to get or provide proper care for the child. Period.
__________________

MissouriGal wrote:

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!".

My Response:

It really gets me to see the attitude of, "who cares about the ex; I've got my own problems." It's not about the ex, it's about the children. No matter how tough times are financially, the NCP would find a way to get food for the child every day if the NCP was the CP. Whatever sacrifices that would have to be made, would be made.

MissouriGal wrote:

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... )

My Response:

In my experience in the state of Florida, jail is never the first option for collection and the bar is set so high on it, it really isn't common with any case with which I am familiar. Courts commonly have the opinion, which I'm sure you share, that NCP's can't pay from jail. But if they're not paying out of jail, what's the difference? Technically, Florida law states that the burden of proof is on the NCP to prove an inability to pay, however, FRCP and precedent do not allow incarceration over a purge amount unless it is proven the accused as the ability to pay the purge amount. I know absolutely nothing about Missouri law, so maybe there, folks are routinely jailed if they are 15 minutes late with a payment. Not here.

Quick examples: A DOR case; going on two years old; they finally got around to setting one hearing, granted six weeks after filing motion. NCP didn't show. Rather than demand default, DOR sent a notice of cancellation two days later and over six months later, has yet to set another hearing. NCP is six figure income professional. Not a guess, a fact. Can't even get an order entered in this case, much less do anything to enforce it. How many more years do you think it will be before the NCP has any real possibility of seeing the inside of a jail cell? Another six figure income earner, proven by bank records obtained under subpoena, claims poverty while providing full support for new spouse and spouse's children from prior marriage. Self employed, ignores IDO's. After 4 contempt hearings this year, less than $2000 was actually collected for the ordered support and over the last two years, $30,000 in arrearages have accumulated. Hasn't seen the inside of a jail cell either and isn't likely to anytime soon. Children doing without support for years on end and worst that is likely to ever happen to these NCP's is that they may eventually have to pay someday.

Yes, I know what the laws say but I also know that it's not always easy to get them enforced. But again, as above, we may be talking about the difference between the average Joe and the skill of the attorneys reprensenting the professionally employed NCP's. Maybe minimum wage Jill is much more likely to go to jail. But just out of curiosity, you said your husband accumulated arrearages for two years because he wasn't able to provide the full amount due each month. Was he arrested for this?

MissouriGal wrote:

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.

My Response:

Again, no clue about Missouri law or the other states for that matter but in Florida, yes, the guidelines are pretty much set in stone. The courts do have discretion to vary under certain prescribed circumstances, with written findings. The extreme medical needs of a child would be cause for a deviation from guideline. My understanding is that in your case, you and your ex worked out a stipulated agreement; the judge didn't follow or not follow anything, it was an agreed choice. As far as the unconstitutionality of child support guidelines, you'd have to explain that one to me. I haven't heard any constitutional challenges. And I have no idea how many states have pending legislation to modify their guideline amounts but if they are unfair, then that is exactly what should be done, for the best interests of all.

My Bottom Line:

Children deserve continuing contact with and support from both parents. Period. The overriding principle in Florida Family Law is "the best interests of the child." And that's the way it should be, in and out of court.

 

[Gracie3787]

limn,
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.

In your response to missourigal you made some statements that I'd like to ask you about:

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

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.

You wrote- "As for the car, well, in my area there is public transportation. I couldn't afford a car on only $92 a week."

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??

You wrote- "In cases where the NCP is in poverty, the odds are that the children are also in poverty."

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? 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??

You wrote- "you should follow gatorguy's good example..."

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).

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 it's own individual facts/circumstances, period.
Gracie

 

[gatorguy3]

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


In my experience in the state of Florida, jail is never the first option for collection and the bar is set so high on it, it really isn't common with any case with which I am familiar. Courts commonly have the opinion, which I'm sure you share, that NCP's can't pay from jail. But if they're not paying out of jail, what's the difference? Technically, Florida law states that the burden of proof is on the NCP to prove an inability to pay, however, FRCP and precedent do not allow incarceration over a purge amount unless it is proven the accused as the ability to pay the purge amount. I know absolutely nothing about Missouri law, so maybe there, folks are routinely jailed if they are 15 minutes late with a payment. Not here.

You are just a tad bit misinformed. During a time when a deduction order was in place, put in motion by my ex's attorney/D.O.R., I was put in jail. I was put there for contempt of not paying support. Ironically though, I was working, and I was not taking home a single dime, as they were deducting the amount--taking my entire paycheck. Ironically still, her attorney/D.O.R., even though they initiated the deduction order, had no idea there was money being deducted nor did they know they amount. Great system, huh.

Now, I finally had to terminate my employment at that job because, although I was still working and having my entire paycheck taken for support, they were initiating the process of suspending my driver's license. Yes, I was paying support, but they were still going to suspend it. So, I resigned my position after more than 10 years. They suspended my license and I was recently turned down for a job paying $30k+ a year because it required driving. (singing) "I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm """"""free""""""""

I would have to say the men and women who died for those freedoms are rolling over in their graves at the moment.

Oh, my point...

Now that I have been turned down for employment because of my license being suspended and it's all my fault....They hearing officer has recommended 179 days in jail... this isn't at all one sided...is it????

And, yes, I am in Florida. I have been a law abiding citizen of Florida my entire life. And, alas, I father a child...the mother decides she wants to raise all 3 of her children alone...and I am at fault...I don't relenquish all fault, because I am responsible too...but, the system is broken. Plain and simple.

 

[Gracie3787]

linm,
I had to go ahead and post earlier before I was done because my husband needed his BP checked. So I'm now finishing my other post up.

Apparently the judges in your circuit need their heads (better yet, thier wallets) examined if they almost never send non paying NCPs to jail or order purges to be paid. The case you referred to where the NCP didn't show for contempt hearing so DOR dismissed it is outrageous. For one, when the NCP didn't show up, the Judge should have issued a bench warrant, but obviously didn't. and for DOR to dismiss was really off the wall. Somebody in your county/circuit needs to show the DOR Fl. statutes chapter 409, where it states that they HAVE to do everything they can to collect. This is one of the reasons that I don't believe CPs should leave everything up to the DOR, they are a gov. agency and all gov. agencies are good at screwing things up.

Like gatorguy, my husband was also jailed for contempt, and he paid a purge. In our circuit CS hearings are held every Thursday. Then on the following Mondays the police blotter in the newspaper will have listings of the NCP's who were jailed for non payment, with the purge amounts listed. The purge amounts are usually quite large. Also, throughout the week there are NCP's listed who were aressted on bench warrants because they didn't appear in court. Interesting fact that I have noticed in police blotters- a person can be jailed for driving with suspended license while intoxicated and given a $100.00 purge amount or 30 days in jail, while a NCP can be jailed staight from a contempt hearing with a purge amount of $2,000.00 or 180 days in jail. I guess it is more of a crime to not pay support (not one single child has ever DIED from lack of CS ) than it is to break probation and commit DUI for a second or more time (people DIE evry day due to drunk drivers- I know- I was widowed by a drunk driver).

The entire system is rotten and until it is fixed, nothing will change. The unfortunate thing is that when parents don't raise their kids together, EVERYBODY loses- parents, kids and taxpayers.

I hope that enforcement improves in your county/circuit soon, because it (and kids) really need it.
Gracie

PS- before anyone gets upset, when I said that not one single child has ever DIED from lack of CS, I am referring to the LEGAL FACTS that 1. if a CP cannot afford to pay for child's med. needs there are free clinics and medicaid and 2. When anyone is deathly ill- especially a child, a hospital is required by law to treat even without ability to pay bill. Gracie.

 

[Whyte Noise]

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.

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.

I know exactly how long it takes for a disability approval. And what about the NCP that doesn't have the education or skills to command a high salary? Those that don't have enough income to provide themselves a "reasonable" lifestyle, much less pay for another households lifestyle too? That's the point I'm trying to make... just because "it's the law", doesn't mean that one or the other can afford it.

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.

I agree. This goes for NCP's as well as CP's.

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.

Actually, no. We do not have similar income levels. Not at all. Since you use the disabled scenario a lot, then let me ask you... suppose I suddenly became disabled, as an NCP? Because that's exactly what happened in my case. It took me from 9/02 until 05/04 to get approved for disability. During that time, my ex was still the CP and I the NCP. I was also still under a court order to pay support. Our current custody order wasn't issued until July 8, 2004.

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.

I agree that it's a huge problem. But, it actually has nothing to do with the judges. It was all CSE and the attorney general. He filed for the modification thru CSE (because theirs is a Title-IV case) in January of one year, and it didn't get in front of a judge until July of the next year. So, not exactly 2 years, but 18 months.

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?

You are correct. It should have been retroactive back to the date of the filing, but it wasn't. Like you say... that's the law. That from the date of filing forward is what's modifiable. However, the judge didn't follow the law. He only made it retroactive for 2 months, not 18.

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.

And, what about if it weren't just you? It was my husband and myself. Then, in May of 2003, my 3 children came to live with me. We didn't have any extra bedrooms to rent out. In our area, there was no public transportation. Rural Missouri, remember? A town population of only 2,000. Not even a taxi. The closest town was 20 miles away, and that's where my husband's paying job was. So we had no choice but to have a car. He surely couldn't walk it everyday. He did have another job. He was on-site management of a motel in that small town we lived in. We got room and board instead of a salary for him. So, he did that by day, then went to work somewhere else on 3rd shift to make the money to pay his CS. Yes, we had room and board free, but room and board doesn't buy food, or medicine, or any of the other "incidentals" a person needs. We did what we had to, to get by... just like you said. He took that job to get a roof over our heads, because $92 a week wasn't going to buy one anywhere.

 

[Whyte Noise]

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.)

I agree with the contact issue too. No, most NCP's do not want to take their child under a bridge. But, when you ARE living under one, or in a homeless shelter, just where would weekend contact happen? You think the CP would offer their home to the NCP for that weekend? Highly doubtful.

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.

I disagree. I was the NCP, and made minimum wage. That's under the poverty level. My ex made close to $50,000 a year counting his yearly bonuses. The CP wasn't in poverty by any means in my case. Nor, in my husbands. His ex made $12 an hour. He made $6. His ex was the CP. Again, who was the one under poverty level? As for your question... how could my husband provide food, clothing, etc. on $184 a week...? He would be the CP then, and he could get state aid. Medicaid, food stamps, etc. Just like CP's all across this country do. The difference with him would be that he WAS working, and not just sitting around without a job. As an NCP though, there are options that are NOT available to him, that ARE available to those who are CP's.

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.

When my husband and his ex were divorced in 1996, she didn't work. That was noted in the divorce paperwork when they did the child support calculations... "The Plaintiff is unemployed, and the Defendant is employed by X making X amount, and is able to provide support for the children as follows..." Now, if THAT doesn't show you proof that the CP wasn't providing support for those kids (she wasn't working, and the court KNEW it), then I don't know what IS proof. No tricks involved... the court knew 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.

OK... I have a friend (male) who pays right at $1,400 a month in CS to his ex. (yeah, he makes good money). She also has 2 other children from 2 different fathers that she gets CS for as well. My friends CS payment to her, alone, is about what most people with a job earn in a month. Moreso, because CS isn't taxable to the recipient. In total, she "brings in" almost $3,000 a month in non-taxable CS. She doesn't work. She has no need to.

As for your example about the homeschooling, etc. You're correct. In intact families we wouldn't say that parent doesn't contribute. However, in intact families we also wouldn't be telling them that you HAVE to pay X amount per month per child to actually be "supporting" that child either would we? Of course not. But, the point is... an NCP's contribution to their child is measured ONLY in the money they provide, according to the courts. If it's the NCP that homeschools, etc. those contributions are not "counted". Only the amount they pay. An NCP supporting their child is only based on monetary thinking. Why should the CP be any different?

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??

We did that. We moved from one state to another to be able to do that. Actually, we've moved states twice. From GA to Missouri, and from Missouri to TN, where we're at now.

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?

That's fine... unless you have no family members, or have them, but they don't have a large enough place to accomidate you. BTDT.

My Response:

I'm not sure where you got those figures, national, state or whatever, but as a taxpayer, I certainly hope they're national and improving. As a Floridian, well, sorry folks, for bringing down the national average. I'm not sure where you got the idea that anyone believes, "most NCP's don't pay a dime." I, for one, most certainly hope that isn't true. Many NCP's pay in full, on time, and above the ordered amount with direct contributions. I know several NCP's and have one in my family. Without exception, they all provide and provide well for their children. The figure I quoted was from the state of Florida's website and is for cases they're involved in, as it was my understanding was the case with the OP, who, I submit, remains one of the few. To my knowledge, the state does not monitor all cases. Not all payments are made through the state, many are paid directly to the NCP, or, as in your case, 'bartered,' so to speak, so there would be no way for the state to track them.

My figures came from the Census Bureau's website. You can go and look them up as well. So yes... they are national. As for where the idea came from that there's the feeling that "most NCP's don't pay a dime: From your own post on page 2:

"According to Florida's own records, only around 26% of NCP's pay in full and on time. http://www.myflorida.com/dor/childs...rks.html#income"

So, only 26% of those in FL pay. That leaves a whopping 74% that doesn't.

And just for the record, I have yet to be involved in a case where the NCP was a minimum wage earner or anywhere near it. Almost all held professional licenses and most self employed or employed by family. The average person, drawing a regular paycheck from a non-family employer, as you know, generally has support withheld from paycheck and forwarded to the state for disbursement for the benefit of the children. Makes things so much easier for everyone, granted, so long as circumstances do not dramatically change. (Again, it is unconscionable the delay in Missouri. In my area, one can usually get a hearing within a couple of months. An emergency hearing within weeks.) And this would probably account for the highest percentage of NCP's, although I've never had a reason to check that figure.

Maybe you haven't been involved in that case, but they are out there. Me and my husband are just 2 examples. I was making $5.15, he was making $6 an hour. That's minimum wage and "close to it". You say you haven't had a reson to check out the figures. Maybe you really should. Your dealings have been with people that can afford to pay. Take a walk on the other side, and see how regular Joe Blow who doesn't have a professional license and works construction, or fast food, or retail actually fairs....

My Response:

You should consider following gatorguy's good example and sue for custody. If the child's needs are not being met, the parent has an obligation to get or provide proper care for the child. Period.

That's fine, in theory linm. And it seems as if it's the logical thing to do. I agree. But tell me.... how do you prove someone isn't doing something? The $600 I spent on them, save the receipts? Their mother would say that was a "gift" and was gotten for them because he wanted to. The children have a roof over their heads (albeit a nasty house with dog poop and a path to walk thru). Call CPS? That's been done. They called to let her know they were coming, so she got her family over there to clean it up before they did. CPS has been called 3 times that I know of. Each time, they called to inform her they were coming. (And no, my husband didn't make those calls. He only made 1. The other 2 were from neighbors that he was told about after the fact.) How do you prove LACK of something when there's no records to prove it?

 

[Whyte Noise]

My Response:

It really gets me to see the attitude of, "who cares about the ex; I've got my own problems." It's not about the ex, it's about the children. No matter how tough times are financially, the NCP would find a way to get food for the child every day if the NCP was the CP. Whatever sacrifices that would have to be made, would be made.

It's not the attitude of "who cares about the ex" linm. It's that NCP's have to be defensive and proactive. No one cares about how they are supposed to live. Only the CP's. You even allude to this in your above statement... saying that if they were the CP they'd sacrifice. Whatever sacrifices have to be made, would be made. Those are your words. Do you think that NCP's don't sacrifice either? They sacrifice themselves right out of their homes and onto the streets in some cases. I agree that it's about the children, and taking care of them. But tell me... how is it in a child's best interest to put one parent in the poor house because of an outlandish CS award that the NCP can't meet? I don't personally know of a single NCP that lives in a mansion on a hill and doesn't want for anything.

My Response:

In my experience in the state of Florida, jail is never the first option for collection and the bar is set so high on it, it really isn't common with any case with which I am familiar. Courts commonly have the opinion, which I'm sure you share, that NCP's can't pay from jail. But if they're not paying out of jail, what's the difference? Technically, Florida law states that the burden of proof is on the NCP to prove an inability to pay, however, FRCP and precedent do not allow incarceration over a purge amount unless it is proven the accused as the ability to pay the purge amount. I know absolutely nothing about Missouri law, so maybe there, folks are routinely jailed if they are 15 minutes late with a payment. Not here.

Quick examples: A DOR case; going on two years old; they finally got around to setting one hearing, granted six weeks after filing motion. NCP didn't show. Rather than demand default, DOR sent a notice of cancellation two days later and over six months later, has yet to set another hearing. NCP is six figure income professional. Not a guess, a fact. Can't even get an order entered in this case, much less do anything to enforce it. How many more years do you think it will be before the NCP has any real possibility of seeing the inside of a jail cell? Another six figure income earner, proven by bank records obtained under subpoena, claims poverty while providing full support for new spouse and spouse's children from prior marriage. Self employed, ignores IDO's. After 4 contempt hearings this year, less than $2000 was actually collected for the ordered support and over the last two years, $30,000 in arrearages have accumulated. Hasn't seen the inside of a jail cell either and isn't likely to anytime soon. Children doing without support for years on end and worst that is likely to ever happen to these NCP's is that they may eventually have to pay someday.

I never said that jail was the first line of defense. Jail is an option for an NCP that doesn't pay CS though. Jail is NOT an option for a CP that doesn't work and support their child. See the difference? NCP's CAN go to jail for not providing monetary support. CP's can't. THAT is the difference.

Yes, I know what the laws say but I also know that it's not always easy to get them enforced. But again, as above, we may be talking about the difference between the average Joe and the skill of the attorneys reprensenting the professionally employed NCP's. Maybe minimum wage Jill is much more likely to go to jail. But just out of curiosity, you said your husband accumulated arrearages for two years because he wasn't able to provide the full amount due each month. Was he arrested for this?

No, he wasn't. He was accumilating arrears, yet he was also paying the maximum allowed by law. CSE deducted it from his paycheck every week. So, he wasn't WILLFULLY not paying. There's a big difference between willfull non-compliance, and not being able to meet the obligation through no fault of his own. By that, I mean that he was laid off thru no fault of his, and he couldn't find a job making more money. Well... after he was at his job for a year, they did give him a $.50 an hour payraise, so he ws making $6.50 an hour instead of $6.a

My Response:

Again, no clue about Missouri law or the other states for that matter but in Florida, yes, the guidelines are pretty much set in stone. The courts do have discretion to vary under certain prescribed circumstances, with written findings. The extreme medical needs of a child would be cause for a deviation from guideline. My understanding is that in your case, you and your ex worked out a stipulated agreement; the judge didn't follow or not follow anything, it was an agreed choice. As far as the unconstitutionality of child support guidelines, you'd have to explain that one to me. I haven't heard any constitutional challenges. And I have no idea how many states have pending legislation to modify their guideline amounts but if they are unfair, then that is exactly what should be done, for the best interests of all.

Yes, judges do have discretion to deviate. That's why I said they aren't set in stone. It's not a "You have to go by these, period. No deviations" rule in ANY state. Your understanding of my case is erroneous. We were divorced in 2002. My husband had sole physical custody. I was ordered to pay CS. This was in GA. In GA, there are "extenuating circumstances" that may be allowed in the CS calculation. As an example (and those that would apply to me personally) The obligors own health and medical (You'd be astounded at the amount of meds I have to take and the costs of them per month), extraordinary travel expenses (It was an average of $700 for me to go and visit my children each time I went), shared physical custody arrangements that included extended visitation (I had my children for 3 straight months while they were on break in the summer from school. I still had to pay my ex CS for those months, even though the children were with me and not him though.), economic circumstances (I think we know how those were), the income of the CP (Ga. isn't an income shares state.. it's a flat percentage of the NCP's income, period. However, since my ex made 5 times what I did a year, this should have been taken into consideration)... these are just 6 instances of what could be considered, that weren't. There are others. So, in my case, the judge didn't "follow" the guidelines and take into consideration the above mentioned items at all.

Now, when we did the custody modification in July, that was done in Missouri. That's where the no CS comes in. In Missouri, they have an income shares model. With split custody I had to do 2 Form 14's. My ex said he wouldn't agree to it unless he didn't have to pay ANY CS. Even though he would have been ordered to pay me $92 a month using our incomes (And I even imputed income to myself even though I am disabled... 40 hours a week at miniumum wage). I re-worked the Form 14's. I put his income lower than what it was, put mine higher than what it was to try and get an "even" number we'd both have to pay. It came out that he would pay me $187 a month, I would pay him $188 a month (remember, we have split custody). So bacially, I'd owe him $1 a month in CS after all is said and done. The judge ruled NO CS because it was only a $1 difference. Basically it came down to.... having custody of my daughter was more important to me than getting CS from my ex because of that custody. If CS was so important to me, I wouldn't have imputed myself income when I didn't have any to get the CS awards basically even so that they'd cancel out. And ya know... most NCP's do NOT want custody to avoid paying CS. That's another "rumor" too. Some may, I agree. My ex may be seen as one of those because of his "I won't agree unless I don't have to pay CS". I've also been told that if I didn't want child support he'd probably give me custody of the other 2 as well, by someone close to him. I don't want the CS, I could care less. All I want is my children.

My Bottom Line:

Children deserve continuing contact with and support from both parents. Period. The overriding principle in Florida Family Law is "the best interests of the child." And that's the way it should be, in and out of court.

I agree with your first sentence wholeheartedly. The fact is, though... that CP's deny contact, and NCP's don't pay CS. That's the reality. The principles of law are good in theory, but in reality, they aren't applied to one sector as readily as they are to the other. A non-paying NCP can have an IDO initiated on their wages. A non-complying CP that withholds visitation though, doesn't have any type of "IDO" that can be applied to them. What's good for the goose is good for the gander IMHO. The sanctions that apply to an NCP for non-payment should apply to a CP for non-compliance with a visitation order.

 

[gatorguy3]

Is all this drudgery necessary? Good gosh almighty!!!

I am away, away from this post.

 

[Gracie3787]

Is all this drudgery necessary? Good gosh almighty!!!

I am away, away from this post.

I second that .

Gracie

 

[Whyte Noise]

It's an ongoing theme that's been on this board for the 2 1/2 years I've been here. To be honest, it's an ongoing theme everyday and will be for a long time.

Voicing one's opinion isn't "drudgery".... when you're the one doing the voicing, I suppose. ( and looks back at the lenth of other's posts in this thread) My response was to linm, as that's who asked the questions of me in reply to my post. I answered those questions.

You're not "obligated" to read them.

 

[gatorguy3]

I agree I was not obligated but feel abliged that I was able to and make my own voice heard

 

[Whyte Noise]

As did I, gatorguy.

Like I said before, I do tend to be "wordy" LOL

I enjoy having rational conversations with people on here. Where both sides can voice their views and opinions. Sometimes, that takes more than a few lines for me.

 

[TNBSMommy]

By MissouriGal

You think the CP would offer their home to the NCP for that weekend? Highly doubtful.

I have actually done this for my ex when he lost his place to live, due to quitting a job(again) and not paying the bills, and no, at that time(kind of like now) he wasn't paying CS, didn't actually start paying any until the following year, we had an open case, I just didn't persue it, I felt it was more important for him and the kids to have a relationship... My thanks for letting them use my home, and leaving, and giving him a place to stay with his wife, their two kids, and our two kids was him going through everything I owned, including stealing a nearly full change jar, and my notebook where I had been documenting when he saw the kids and who provided the transportation(I was planning to take it to court to get some kind of normal visitation set up, at that time we had "reasonable") and, b/c he was "mad at" me, decided to disappear with our kids on Christmas eve, and showed up with them the next evening... up until that year, we took turns having santa at one house or another together for the kids, so we could both see them, and share that with them, neither one of us had missed a Christmas Eve/morning with them.. the prior year was the last year that happened, as far as I was concerned, he changed the rules of the game, and I decided I had a few new rules of my own....

Of course, you already know my history with him, I just wanted to point out that some CP's have tried their damndest to work with the NCP.

 

[Whyte Noise]

Oh, I know... I'm not saying that they don't. Hell, I lived with my ex and his wife for almost 3 weeks once! I offered to let my ex stay here at our home when my daughter had her biopsy. LOL But... let my husband ask his wife about staying with her just for a weekend...??? Uhh... that ain't gonna happen until hell freezes over.

There's good and bad in BOTH catagories.

 

[TNBSMommy]

There's good and bad in BOTH catagories.

You can say that again...That is what I like about you(ok, one of the things, lol), you can see both sides of the situation, it aggravates me when people only look at things from THEIR particular situation. You know I am not a step mom, but I have friends who are and have to deal with psycho CP's~I don't consider myself in that category. And I also know NCP's who try and try to be involved and who pay the CS~I don't consider my ex in that category.