FOX Houston Does Special on Child Support & Custodial Dads
November 8th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Some of you may remember several weeks ago in one of my weekly E-newsletters I asked for Texas custodial dads who receive or are supposed to receive child support. Many of you responded--so many, in fact, that the Houston FOX affiliate on whose behalf I wrote the notice told me they had to have a "cattle call" of all the dads. FOX ended up using three of the dads in the show (pictured, above right), and they spoke about their situations and their struggles.
While I have no complaint about what's in the show's clip of me, the totality of my interview was more nuanced. In the interview I also pointed to the many problems with the child support system, and explained that noncustodial moms sometimes fall victim to them just like noncustodial dads often do.
To watch the FOX special, which aired in Houston on Monday, November 5, click here. (Warning, it may take a moment to load.)
To write Emmy Award winning reporter Melinda Spaulding, who put the special together, click here.
"));
19 queries. 0.401 seconds.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Glenn,
While I applaud the effort, the turn in the interview to contact the AG, along with the comment by the judge that there is a special place for them in the Harris County jail, does more harm than good. Yes, these fathers should not face the double standard of having to pay but when they have the children they receive no monies. Who would not agree? However, the real issue here is state intervention into our lives, marriages, families all while the state is gaining a profit and a level of greater control over the entire society while feigning they are working for the 'greater good.' They are not and so the issue of CS, no-fault and all the other issues can be solved by simply getting this socialist, gramscian leviathan from feeding, exploiting and destroying an institution (the family) that is antecedent to statal claims of right and existence. The family can live without the state but the state cannot live without families except by exploitation and biological manipulation. And guess where we are? It is time to act.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Glenn,
Thanks for making a place (this blog) where the media can locate and identify the right people, to make a show like this.
Thomas, ... Go, Ron Paul, Go!
November 8th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
"Many of you responded--so many, in fact, that the Houston FOX affiliate on whose behalf I wrote the notice told me they had to have a "cattle call" of all the dads."
I thought that one of the primary problems being discussed here was that courts are biased against men, so that fathers are losing custody en masse for no good reason. If that's true, where did all of these custodial dads come from?
November 8th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
BrooklynGirl wrote:
"I thought that one of the primary problems being discussed here was that courts are biased against men, so that fathers are losing custody en masse for no good reason. If that's true, where did all of these custodial dads come from?"
Brooklyngirl -
It's hard not to sound patronizing when answering such a question, so I'll stop there, and just cite some facts:
Custodial mothers who receive a support award: 79.6%
Custodial fathers who receive a support award: 29.9%
Non-custodial mothers who totally default on support: 46.9%
Non-custodial fathers who totally default on support: 26.9%
Technical Analysis Paper No. 42, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Income Security Policy, Oct. 1991, Authors: Meyer and Garansky. Retrieved 11/8/07 from http://www.childrensjustice.org/stats.htm .
November 8th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
With the divorce rate at what it is vs the total population of the United States, even if 10% percent of divorced dads got custody that is still a large number. The bigger question is why they're all up in arms about not getting fair financial support from the mothers of their children.
November 8th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
I wasn’t able to watch the video, it wouldn’t load, I guess.
I could see where it was headed by the caption that read “single dads discuss deadbeat moms”.
I don’t think it makes anymore sense to call mothers deadbeats than it does fathers. I hope Glenn pointed this out in his segment, if he didn’t, I think he should. Calling someone a deadbeat is on the same level as making racial or sexist slurs.
I think Child support should be reserved for a parent who doesn’t want custody, and would rather pay the custodial parent money, than take an equal role in raising their children.
I hope we all understand that child support is the reason one parent, or the other, is awarded custody. It’s done that way so the courts can collect matching federal dollars from the federal government.
We need to get the courts out of the child support racket altogether.
If any of these women refuse to pay because they are being denied equal access to their children, I applaud you for having the courage, and the self-respect, to do the right thing.
Kevin Merck
November 8th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
I just hope that none of these custodial dads (or any custodial dads anywhere) are using the same extortion like tactics that custodial moms have been using for years. I'm all for fathers winning custody when the situation calls for it but it would be just plain wrong if they take the "two wrongs make a right" approach.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Danny,
That would be problematic at best since men do not recieve the same level of treatment when the roles are reversed. The reason mother are not ordered to pay support IMHO is because the court is hoping the father will give up when the financial burden becomes too much. They then give custody back to the mother who can then go into court and make the CSE and judges feel all good about themsleves for slapping down a deadbeat dad.
A woman who gives up a child to a safe haven is considered a "hero" but a man who does the same would be considered a criminal whos only intent was to avoid paying child support.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
nice when dad doesn't have a job support is set and must be paid, it so be the same for the deadbeat mommy as well. no matter if don't have a job, one claim not to have work since last September, how and where has been living? how is she buying her self food
November 9th, 2007 at 12:30 am
All men need to support and vote for Ron Paul. Go Ron Paul!!!!
November 9th, 2007 at 4:08 am
Traditionally over the last 8 or so decades, the majority of custodial fathers have been the maternal-walkaways, those where mom ran off --usually with another man-- and left dad with the kids. That's changing as high power and high wealth men win custody. It may well already be that the high power & high wealth custodial fathers already make up a slim majority of fathers with custody. So: BrooklyGirl: There's never been a need for most custodial fathers to go through family court, they already have de facto custody.
OK, nothing surprising there, as far back as we genealogists can go we see the cyclical maternal walkaway factor rising and falling through history.
Over the last three decades those women were supposed to pay child support and few have bothered to do it. What is angry making and upsetting is the reluctance of officials to make women pay combined with a public attitude which says that a father collecting child support from the non-custodial mother is abusing that non-custodial mother.
Thanks to FOX for producing and airing this matter.
November 9th, 2007 at 7:32 am
There is considerable potential improvement in America from strongly promoting the fact of "deadbeat moms", as follows:
1. It forces the state to do what is not PC, which will make its entire apparatus less popular
2. It will reduce the rate of divorce and out-of-wedlock childbirth, because even a tiny chance of winding up a non-custodial mother and having to pay big $ in support will scare off many, many women from filing divorce, and many others from sperm-trapping a man
3. As this becomes a risk in American life which is not just feared by the 49% of voters who are men, but also the 51% of voters who are women, two things will likely happen
A. there will be increased voter pressure for shared custody (50/50), and
B. there will be increased voter pressure to stop making bone-crushing, over-the-top support awards against any parent..
Anyone who has employed or supervised large numbers of white-collar men and women over a long period of time has likely seen what I have seen, which is that in matters of economics, most women are extremely risk averse. They also don't like uncertainty in their own economic lives. For example, many women would opt for a raise in salary of $5K over the less certain chance to earn a bonus of $20K on a company-performance or merit scale. If the bonus "chance" were only $10K versus a raise of $5K, the majority would take the $5K raise.
Once the word gets out among women that having a child out of wedlock, or filing for divorce, might mean that they will wind up with economic risk in their lives, some of these horrible problems facing men could start disappearing right quick.
Ergo, it is extremely valuable Glenn for you to promote the existence of "deadbeat" moms, and I would note the massive number of deadbeat moms reported by Fox should be confirmed, and trumpeted for all to hear. This can only help bring about much needed change.
November 12th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Kevin,
I think Child support should be reserved for a parent who doesn’t want custody, and would rather pay the custodial parent money, than take an equal role in raising their children.
That is exactly what I think Kevin then why is it I have to pay child support when we have 50-50 custody and make very similar incomes? They said they had to look back to 2 years ago when I had a real good year. Isn't it a coincidence she left me then huh? I am on a draw/commission job and am now making less than her guaranteed salary but still have to pay her. Wonder where some of the bitterness comes from you know!
November 13th, 2007 at 10:17 am
My ex's total and complete child support obligation for two children is $140. It was set during a temporary hearing, and never modified to the standard support order. It is below what someone making minimum wage would pay. Also, she is not obligated to pay for their health insurance, nor half of their medical expenses, expenses that are typical in my state for the non-custodial parent.
(I have the children because the court could no longer ignore the fact that she's a 'Brittney Spears' grade train-wreck, and continues to be so.)
The only time she's ever made a payment was when she paid two months worth of support, and then only on the day of a her hearing - and keep in mind - she sued *ME*. She could afford to retain a lawyer, and file a suit, but can't help out her kids. Needless to say, my legal fees for this year exceed her entire back balance. The enforcement office let me know that they really don't care until the arrears exceed 3500, which should be 25 months of not paying any support, at her rate. When I had the obligation, that would have been exceeded in 5 months.
The state AG's office, (Greg Abbot), has accepted the paperwork, but in 7 months they have done nothing.
Where child support enforcement against men is concerned, The AG is the bogey man, threatening to take a drivers' license, incarcerate, seize assets, etc. Where men are concerned, the state's position is 'suck it, get a job'. It's almost a scene out of "Goodfellas" - Hurt yourself at work? Too bad, pay me. Buisness is slow? Too bad, pay me. Car broke down? Too bad, pay me. Family emergency? Too bad, pay me. Employer cut your hours, lost your job? Too bad, pay me, and get another job. New family has a problem? Too bad, pay me. Oh, you GOT another job to pay for all of the debt she ran up? Lets up your support and reward your ex some more. Custodial mom blows all the money on alcohol, drugs and the new boyfriend, and you gave mom some extra money to feed your kids? Too bad, pay me anyway. Court awards you the kids, but 'forgets' to change the support order for two months? Too bad, pay me, and you're a retard if you think the court will order a refund.
Oh, the non custodial parent's a woman? Why didn't you say so! Ok, we'll give mom a freaking YEAR to get a real job, ignore the fact that she spent $50,000 on legal fees last year (more than you made), set her support at a token amount, just to be 'fair', and dispite the fact that she's dragging you in court a mere 6 months after the last final orders, we'll still look the other way, while she piddles around with another 8 months of drug testing, and ignore that she didn't accomplish anything set in the previous court order.
There have been several court orders for her to return her employment information. Still, nothing.
All I'm asking for is equal consideration under the law, and in the public eye. She makes a fair amount of money, most of it under the table as a 'person of negotiable affection'. We are struggling to make ends meet, and she is not. She is 'allowed' to do nothing to support her own children. A man would be publicly shamed, and put in jail, by this point, and have a higher support order, to boot. Socially speaking, the expectations for men are grossly different. I have to prove my competance as a parent, and it's considered 'just' that I'm expected to do it without any financial help from the other parent. There's a double standard for mis-behavior, as well - I was cut out of my children's lives for months, strictly on the accusations of the other parent, ' because we have to err on the side of caution', with no consequence for a false allegation, but Ms. TrainWreck gets chance after chance to get it right, without getting her case tossed out, and continues to enjoy a considerable involvement in their lives.
Oh yeah, my ex is now a big Ron Paul supporter. I've been a libertarian for a decade, but only now since the shoe is on the other foot does she think non-custodial parents 'have it bad', and wants the state out of her life. Which is funny, since she's the one who got the state involved in her life in the first place.
November 13th, 2007 at 10:20 am
being held responsible is the key, if some parents were not made to pay to help support thier kids they wouldn't, my ex-wife said she couldnt work and she was not made to pay and she dosn't, the system is broken and no one has the courage to stand up and fix it! its called being fair, why is that so hard? do not put undue burden on parents who do the right thing by their kids and help raise them, but do not let the deadbeats get away with being selfcentered and calling themselves victims of the system, we can all clearly see the effects of such behavior on our kids and we will not fully understand the consequences until our kids have spouses and kids of their own. personal responsibility for our own actions and behaviors is the key, some times we must have the courts step in and enforce a parents responsibilitys to thier children. thats why we should have a child support system, not to use it as a weapon to apply sanctions on a spouse for the self satisfaction of the opposing side, our kids will clearly see how we bahaved and either mimick us our distance themselves from us, in any case the out come is not positive for our kids.
November 15th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
[...] (Note: Thanks to all those who responded to my request last month for Texas dads with child support issues. Three of those who responded to our notice appeared on a Fox Houston TV special on dads and child support on November 5. To watch that show, click here.) [...]
November 20th, 2007 at 1:28 am
We have been STARTING to DO SOMETHING ABOUT ALL OF THIS for 40 years now... When are we going to see the fruits of all of this labor?
I have a case pending in Dallas, Texas. I will have to hitchike down there from Tulsa, Oklahoma sometime either this week or next so that I can get into the courthouse and take a look at the files and see what kind of a mess they left everything in.
This case is wrought with false allegations, Fraud to Obtain Child Support, Fraud to Obtain Custody, Secreting the Children from a Spouse, Conspiracy on behalf of the mother and several Texas State Assistant Attorney Generals from Dallas County... and on and on.
Yes, ALL this and the court couldn't find enough time between 1997 and now to allow the actual divorce to go through.
When all the smoke clears, VOID Judgement is written all over this matter and solutions being nothing less than HAVING to file criminal charges as there is no other way to proceed toward a divorce without first clearing the way of all the criminal actions.
I have no other choice other than to demand the recusal of the judge, sue the wife under Texas Statute: CHAPTER 42. CIVIL LIABILITY FOR INTERFERENCE WITH POSSESSORY INTEREST IN CHILD and seek criminal charges against her and the others that assisted her in acheiving the commission of her crimes.
...and you know that EVERYTHING in TEXAS is BIG!
Anybody in Dallas want to meet up when I get there? Contact me! 918-582-1694.
Gregory Romeu
http://TulsaFathers.org
November 20th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Hello Melinda,
Thank you for the interest piece on Mothers who do not pay child support. At least at this point you are one of the first to bring out an issue that effects children through lack of participation from the mothers. Although you fail to mention the veracity at which Fathers are demonized for not paying support for what ever reason. Being unemployed is not an excuse that limits the family court from putting Fathers in jail indefinitely. Why was the Mother in your piece not in jail already for her lack of compliance?
There is still much larger picture here which needs to be brought out , while trying to keep the list short, please consider the following:
1) The adversarial process of matrimonial dissolution VS the resolution based process via mediation.
2)False allegations of domestic violence and child abuse by mothers used to gain custody and financial advantage.
3) How the courts and the legal profession make tons of money off the false domestic violence business. Billions are provided via the Federal and State government (our tax dollars)
4) Why there is absolutely zero funding provided for Fathers who are abused by their female partners.
5)Exactly how the false domestic violence business works and how kids are routinely separated from their family for profit and reward.
6) How the Phycological profession is used to create false allegations and destroy any potential for a positive post divorce environment for the children and the separated parents.
Just thought I would give you a few avenues to address that certainly would make headline news.
Thank you again,
December 9th, 2007 at 8:01 am
Hi Gregory,
I'm a Dad from the UK whose ex wife took my children to Texas against a court order for shared residency. She and her new husband (who is complicit and worth $100m) were ordered to return the children to the UK by a Texas judge who found that they had been abducted.
My Texan lawyer has advised me to sue both of them under the Chapter 42 offence 'Possessary Rights...'. Do you think it worthwhile, as its costing me a fortune at present?
Thanks in advance.
Phil
December 17th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
[...] (Note: Thanks to all those who responded to my request a couple months ago for Texas dads with child support issues. Three of those who responded to our notice appeared on a Fox Houston TV special on dads and child support on November 5. To watch that show, click here.) [...]
January 11th, 2008 at 10:43 am
[...] Thanks also to all those who responded to my request last month for Texas dads with child support issues. Three of those who responded to our notice appeared on a Fox Houston TV special on dads and child support on November 5. To watch that show, click here.] [...]
January 20th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
[...] [Note: Thanks to all those who responded to my request last month for struggling married couples. The show I was recruiting you for was Inside Edition, and the couple from my list appeared on the show January 9. Thanks also to all those who responded to my October request for Texas dads with child support issues. Three of those who responded to our notice appeared on a Fox Houston TV special on dads and child support on November 5. To watch that show, click here.] [...]
January 21st, 2008 at 6:20 pm
[...] [Note: Thanks to all those who responded to my request last month for struggling married couples. The show I was recruiting you for was Inside Edition, and the couple from my list appeared on the show January 9. Thanks also to all those who responded to my October request for Texas dads with child support issues. Three of those who responded to our notice appeared on a Fox Houston TV special on dads and child support on November 5. To watch that show, click here.] [...]
November 4th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
texas holeem poker poker computer software...
Erikson whips Angus.auscultations?minced:buries ...
November 7th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
perfect black jack...
renew synonymously bulldozes cholera.commemorate:infirmary ...
January 13th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Please tell my story
Last weekend, I came across a memo you wrote patting yourself and your staff on the back for the marvelous job you have done on collecting child support from dead beat parents. You wrote about the success rate you had in finding jobs for the dead beats which in turn enabled them to pay their back owed child support.
Here, I thought to myself, I must be in the minority. I consider your office to be the most useless one on the face of the earth. I am a single mother owed more than 10,000.00 in child support. I am not on food stamps / Welfare or TANF so I am not considered priority. If you had to recuperate money from the father for me being on welfare, your efforts would have been hastened.
Your staff is always helpful with knowing nothing. They are so kind with sending a note to the field office but not knowing why nothing has been done since my last call.
I went online to do some research and found that my story was not unique; there are countless men and women that The State of Texas has failed to help. I decided to start a process that catalogs your uselessness. I want to ask anyone who can publish my story to help get the word out. My intention is to get as many signatures of women/men in the same plight and eventually take our voices to someone who can listen and help us.
I started support proceeding against my son's father when he was 1yr old; you eventually had a support order in place when he turned 2. It took a whole year to get a support order in place for the child. His father increased his earning power over the years and his wages were reported to your office but you only modified the support in 2005. I received one modification in five years. I questioned this time frame and was told that this was not the norm; you normally do a revision once every two years. I was out of luck. Child Support could not be retroactive.
In 2006, his father quit his job and stopped paying the support. I had to wait for one year for me to get into court again. In 2008, we went back in and he told the judge that he was simply stressed out and could not work any longer. How I wish, I could be afforded the same luxury, wherein I could be stressed and not come to work. The judge put him on probation and told him he would be jailed if he failed to support the child. Here is where the mockery comes in, my support dropped to $5.30 - $10.59 biweekly, depending on his mood.
Now the support has stopped and I called the folks who never know anything again. Well back in 2005, when my son was in the first grade, I had moved (counties mind you, I did not move countries) and requested a transfer of the case. I had been told it was not feasible. Now that my son is in the fourth grade (3 yrs later) they suddenly decided, we can do this and want to transfer the case. I was thinking that now he was surely going to be jailed for enforcement but no, it takes about three months for the transfer. The judges have to sign off and we have to have another day in court and he does not have to pay his dismal stipend in the mean time.
.Why does it take three months to transfer a file from one unit to another? If both units are in the SAME state, under the SAME law, why is the enforcement order in place not used to enforce payment of the support?
You guys are just useless and I am collecting petitions. If you have a unit dedicated to task, it should be closed or privatized. The guys who never seem to know what is going on and the field agents who never seem to be able to do what the guys who never seem to know what is going on ask them to do all need another job. One like every one else – if you do not know what is going on, find the answer from someone who does.
April 15th, 2009 at 8:37 am
This topic is quite hot in the net right now. What do you pay the most attention to when choosing what to write ?