Child Support Agent: 'The Reasons for Non-Payment Are Irrelevant'
May 19th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
"How a debt comes into existence is of no concern to the collector. Whether the debtor believes or feels that the debt is justified or appropriate is of no concern to the collector. The feelings of the debtor have no bearing on whether or not the debt is owed."--Michael 'Doc' McCoy, former director, CSI
"The Child Support Agent's Viewpoint" is authored by Michael 'Doc' McCoy, a prominent former child support official and one of the pioneers of the private child support collection industry.
McCoy was the Founder and Managing Director of Child Support Intervention (CSI) in Fort Worth, TX from 1991 to 2002, and held a leadership position in the American Child Support Collection Association from 1993 to 1999. He retired from CSI in 2002 and currently lives in China. He has often been a commenter on www.glennsacks.com under the name "Doc."
McCoy has on occasion been a critic of the private child support industry and an internal reformer--to learn more, see SmartMoney magazine's Mother's Little Helpers (8/2/02). McCoy's post for this week is below.
Who Qualifies as a Deadbeat?
By Michael 'Doc' McCoy
One of the most reviled professions in America is that of a debt or bill collector. The primary reason is simple: People do not like to be forced to be responsible. That is the debt collector’s primary responsibility and role: To work through all of the objections a debtor has to paying a bill and convince the debtor that paying the bill is the right – and only course of action.
A debtor wants understanding, compassion and sympathy. The debtor has decided in his or her own mind whether the bill in question and the payments being required are appropriate, valid, just, fair and equitable. The debt collector’s job and responsibility to the creditor is to collect as much money as possible in the shortest period of time. Invariably, that means that the debtor is going to have to make sacrifices in his or her life to pay the obligation in the shortest possible time. At the end of the day, the debtor has only three options: pay the bill, go to court and challenge the bill or simply refuse to pay the bill. Some bills in the commercial sector can be negotiated, but in the child support sector, that is not possible. Payments must be made. The only person that can waive payments is a judge.
How a debt comes into existence is of no concern to the collector. Whether the debtor believes or feels that the debt is justified or appropriate is of no concern to the collector. The feelings of the debtor have no bearing on whether or not the debt is owed.
With child support collections, the industry standard requires that the arrearage be a minimum of $5,000 and that the custodial parent is not receiving welfare. The majority of clients of private agencies typically have not remarried and are employed. The average arrearage placed with an agency is typically at least three times the $5,000 threshold. It is extremely rare that an account would be placed with a private agency where the obligor is currently making payments. Hence, the vast majority of cases will show an obligor who has not made any payments for a minimum of one year, with most not having made any payments for a number of years.
In child support collections, the debt, or obligation is first verified by reviewing all of the court orders and obtaining payment histories from the appropriate agencies. The custodial parent is also required to disclose direct payments that have been received. CSI for example, never experienced a case where the payment records were in error in regards to payments processed through a public agency.
After a case is placed, a credit bureau report is obtained, as is the practice in all debt collections. The credit bureau report will provide a small financial picture of the obligor. Many credit reports will show a decent credit history, while others will show a dismal credit history. Many credit grantors will largely ignore negative child support or student loan accounts and grant credit because they know that these individuals typically will pay consumer goods credit accounts and such a history has been created. In cases like that, it is reasonable to determine that the obligor is a deadbeat when it comes to providing financial support for his or her children. Again, the reasons for non payment are irrelevant.
When the credit report is dismal, then there are two distinct possibilities. The first is that the obligor has a valid reason for not paying debts. The second possibility is that the obligor is financially irresponsible. In the majority of cases, the latter will be the reason.
Using information provided by the client or the credit report, CSI would make three efforts to contact the obligor by mail. If the first or subsequent letters are returned as undeliverable, then the case would go into skip tracing – a system where efforts are made to locate an obligor. In the letters, the obligor is notified of the amount of the arrearage as well as being provided with an opportunity to contest or challenge the arrearage. Typically, in the vast majority of the cases, the obligor does not respond to any of the letters.
If there is no response to the initial letters, then efforts are made to find out where the obligor is working. This is done through mining of other proprietary databases that are available to both collection agencies and those who are enforcing judgments. The goal is to locate an employer so that a wage withholding order can be issued quickly to send a clear message to the obligor that the private agency, unlike a public agency is serious about the child support issue. The wage withholding order issued is for the amount of current support plus any amount for arrearage that has been ordered by a court. In the vast majority of cases, an amount for arrearages has been ordered. This, combined with the fact that there have been no or minimal payments made since the most recent court order would indicate that the obligor is a deadbeat.
After the wage withholding order has been issued, and been in place for a month or two, then efforts are made to directly contact the obligor. In this period of time, it is presumed that the obligor has been able to adjust his or her budget to accommodate the deductions. The next goal is then to work out a payment plan to pay the arrearage in the shortest amount of time.
What has been described so far are the “simple” cases. Quite often, those cases do not remain simple, as the obligor will quit the job. Those cases, like the cases where it was not possible to locate an obligor’s employer go into a different type of collection activity which includes direct contact being made or attempted to be made with the obligor.
Many obligors claim to be “self employed” but have no identifiable place of business, other than “out of their homes.” Many do not pay income taxes. Typically, they do not have bank accounts. They live in a “cash society” which makes it difficult for anyone to collect any money from them. Whether they are truly “broke” or not can be difficult to determine, but not impossible.
Each case must be approached on its own merits. An obligor who claims to be “broke” and cannot afford to pay child support is encouraged to make at least “good faith payments” which means that they need to pay at least something every month. They are also requested to share their financial picture with the collector. If they refuse or decline to do so, then other steps are taken.
We live in an information age. There is plenty of information available about people through information and data brokers. There is also a wealth of information available about people from neighbors and family members. Some family members – brothers, sisters, parents, etc. - will try to defend or hide an obligor. Others will tell the collector that the obligor is worthless and how he or she has “screwed” different family members.
A private agency is able to reliably determine if someone is truly “deadbroke” or if they are able to afford to pay child support. They are able to make that determination better than public agencies because the private agency is able to devote both financial and time resources into each case. Private agencies have smaller case loads for each collector and invest heavily in both technology and human resources to hire and adequately train collectors to be successful and effective. As a result, private agencies are typically showing success rates in excess of 60 and 70% of all the cases that they handle.
In the collection industry as a whole, there is extensive knowledge of human nature. One aspect of human nature is that many people believe that they should be excused from paying a debt because, for example, they don’t like who the debt is owed to, or feel that they are not getting a fair shake from the creditor. Collectors are trained to overcome those objections and do what is necessary, within the confines of the law, to require people to be responsible.
Child support and custody are emotional issues. A collector is not afforded the luxury of taking sides with any of the parties. A collector must remain detached to do his or her job. It is the same as in any other industry that is dealing with people and their own unique problems and situations.
"));
19 queries. 0.543 seconds.
May 19th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
So if someone violated Mr. McCoy's constitutional rights, and took his children or if he is older, his grandchildren,
told him he needs to pay $1,000 amonth and Mr. McCoy was hit by a drunk driver and left disabled he would have no excuse not to pay this debt?
This is a classic case of- I don't mind if someone's rights are being violated as long as it's not mine.
May 19th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Doc's take on this issue is reminiscent of the bounty hunters during slavery: The moral implications are irrelevant, it's simply about exploiting the letter of the law and the bigotry du jour for a greasy buck.
How morally reprehensible.
May 19th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
This total lack of negotiation is the crux of the problem. The payer does not get to negotiate at all, either in how much cost he will assume (such as, in private cases, deciding between the expensive big screen TV or the cheaper small TV) nor in his payments (many private debts can be negotiated, as I've had to do during periods of unemployment).
The child support system, as implemented, is unconstitutional. It is slavery for a judge to tell a person how much they should earn and hand over to another based on what that judge thinks that person should be able to earn.
The system needs to be changed to either a flat percentage of the NCP's earnings set to the same for all NCPs (no matter how little, with a possible cap on how much) or changed to a flat rate that all parents (including CPs of children 5+ years of age) are required to earn to "properly support" a child. The latter would be my preferred fix.
May 19th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Glenn, I appreciate the posting because it contains a great deal of information about how these agencies operate and, therefore, useful for establishing strategies for dealing (or avoiding dealing) with them.
On the other hand, what a cold hearted monster. He acknowledges this profession is reviled and then shows us precisely why: If he could kidnap and sell babies to Rumplestiltskin for a profit, he'd brag about it. Or capture runaway slaves during the underground railroad days. Hey, those slaves have to live up to their responsibilities! When there's a whip there's a way! All he cares about is his bottom line and getting money. This makes him little different than his prey whom he claims only cares about NOT paying him.
He then tries to conclude, speciously, that we're all amoral monsters who are only interested in extracting a pound of flesh without regard for justice or compassion. Er, speak for yourself Doc. Speak for yourself. He clearly has problems with being labeled a bottom feeder by society. Deal with it! Oh, by the way: There's a quarter under a turd in the parking lot. If you move quickly, you might beat your colleagues to it!
May 19th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Doc says:
"One of the most reviled professions in America is that of a debt or bill collector."
Domestic court lawyers and judges can be placed in that category too!!!
May 19th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
What's the saying? Don't ask the rat-catcher if it is wrong to kill rats?
May 19th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
"The primary reason is simple: People do not like to be forced to be responsible."
Why is it that only men are held to this standard and not women?
How about the woman who got pregnant by 3 different airline pilots and was pimping the system? She ended up cashing in on $70,000 a year and wasn't even working. How about making her responsible for her actions? That story was in the book "The Father's Emergency Guide to Divorce-Custody Battle: A Tour Through the Predatory World of Judges, Lawyers, Psychologists & Social Workers, in the Subculture of Divorce by Robert Seidenberg"
May 19th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Because of chivalry. God forbid we hold women accountable for their own bad choices.
May 19th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
some one please correct this man's misunderstandings - "The primary reason is simple: People do not like to be forced to be responsible." is not true "People don't want to be looted or robbed to help pay the debt collector's salaries" is more like it.
"To work through all of the objections a debtor has to paying a bill and convince the debtor that paying the bill is the right – and only course of action."
Force the debt down his neck after bounding his arms and legs. Does this man believe that his salary grows on trees? If not this is incredibly sadistic and self-righteous.
May 19th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Demonspawn
The system needs to be changed to either a flat percentage of the NCP's earnings set to the same for all NCPs
I dont agree with this one thing, The Government and the courts should not be involved in the family at all. There is no reason for them to be involved short of abuse and neglect, and true neglect not the children want new $150 sneakers or a vacation for Mom. The Government must be driven out of the homes completely.
And it is slavery, change the name but its still slavery. I want reparations!
May 19th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
So if the private groups have no emotional attachment to their job, and work to ensure payments no matter what, why should I be impressed that they can access more personal information about me? Knowing someone's plight better is clearly not going to evoke sympathy - it only means they can hound me easier. It seems like that part was a sugar coated form of intimidation.
May 19th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
So, Doc, it is obviously helpful for collectors such as yourself to be cold, heartless bastards who find refuge (and probably delight) in the role of unfeeling functionary -- even when you know that much of the debt you are pursuing is the result of institutionalized injustice against those in your sights who are helpless in the face of your government-sanctioned bullying. I am sure that Death himself would make an excellent collector!
Well, good for you. You must be very proud. And how nice that there is a profession PERFECTLY suited to your personality and "talents" (now that there aren't so many galley slave-drivers needed anymore). Are jack-boots mandatory equipment, or just a fashion statement?
The reason for your constant dismissal of men's concerns and hyper-attention to women's concerns is increasingly obvious -- you attempt to give yourself a "soft place to fall" psychologically, right? You just keep on "following orders" -- and you'll be able to sleep like a baby. No worries.
May 19th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Any idiot or blithering incompetent could easily build a business collecting "debts" from private citizens IF...
he had the threat of the U.S. and state governments behind him to imprison the debtor if he didn't pay.
THAT type of debt collection is child's play.
And child-like bullies are the types of "people" who went into, and are, in this type of business.
If they had any skills, they could build a real business collecting accounts receivable from consumers and businesses.
But like so many "professions" connected to family court, this one too is all about providing employment for losers, flunkies, and other cast offs who are otherwise unemployable in real capacities in the "professions" they claim to be working in. They are only able to fake being "professionals" due to the brutal sponsorship of our country's unconstitutional family courts and the power-tripping, otherwise not-employable judges and others who collect government salaries there.
Make sense?
I mean, who in thier right mind, if they had any skills at all, would spend their career as a
-child support collections professional - Why not do corporate credit work?
-family court lawyer - Why not do litigation with 15 associates leveraging the client partner?
-family court judge - Why not work in a real court, handing large-scale civil or serious criminal cases? -- or work as a partner in a law firm?
-family court psychologist -- Why not develop a loyal clientelle of patients who have heard of your great work?
The bottom line is that there are only four common reasons for someone making their living in this system:
#1. They are not good enough to rise above the bottom of the barrel they are lurking in
#2. They are greed-crazed.
#3. They are power-crazed and like having power over, and hurting, innocent people.
#4. They have some bizarre gender-based agenda and do not comprehend that our society is supposed to be gender neutral by law.
People who wind up in an important function for the wrong reasons are likely to do the wrong thing again and again.
And America's family courts are living proof of that principle.
May 19th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
what Doc fails to state also is he is a deadbeat as well. As I have posted before several of the so called single mothers he is working on behalf of have made the claim he hasn't turned over the money to them.
SOOOOO if the reasons for non payment are irrelevant DOC how do you explain yourself.?? kinda makes your argument moot.
May 19th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Forgot to add to the above post:
Thank you, Glenn, for allowing this nasty, slimy, repellent, writhing thing (Doc's attitude) to come out into the light from under the rock where it breeds and is allowed to fester. Notwithstanding the powerful revulsion we may experience, we all need to get a good look. Doc is the poster-boy for those who enable the assault on families to continue. He is in no way at fault (just ask him!); he is merely a parasite sucking up his share of the profit that comes from fathers' enslavement and suffering. I wonder. Do you have to put a clothespin on your nose when Doc's contributions come in? Your intestinal fortitude is remarkable.
May 19th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
JayR says to Doc: "Well, good for you. You must be very proud. And how nice that there is a profession PERFECTLY suited to your personality and "talents""
PK adds: JayR, notice how important it was to Doc to emphasize that he's no different than anyone else. Consider:
"It is the same as in any other industry that is dealing with people and their own unique problems and situations."
Which is a pretty broad generalization, don't you think? What industry doesn't deal with people and unique problems and situations?
In previous posts on this forum, he's gone to a great deal of trouble to justify himself. I don't think he's sleeping well at night. I don't think it's necessarily due to a guilty conscience (although that might be part of it) but rather shame. He's miffed that when he goes to parties and announces he's a child-support bounty hunter, people treat him like dirt. Probably women too despite him working on their behalf. They like it when he breaks some guy's kneecaps to get them to pay JabbaTheHut but hey, they don't want him near her or her children.
So he huffs and puffs here and elsewhere to try to get some attention and recognition he sorely lacks in his personal life. If he was really proud, he wouldn't be talking to us. Count on it. He'd be surrounded by chicks all excited over his blood money and too busy to talk to the likes of us!
May 19th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
There was a time in the U.S. when courts would state a support figure which a divorced father should pay to his ex-wife, and some -- if not many -- fathers routinely ignored this decision of the court, leaving mothers who were ligitimately in need with no practical recourse.
That is a fact of American family court history which cannot be denied.
But today, matters have gone to an unrecognizeable extreme in the other direction. What is happening in America's family courts today is that men are being routinely sold into slavery for amounts of "support" which bear no relationship to actual support costs.
It is this slave-trade upon which the "professionals" I am criticizing are making their living.
No father of any conscience in America would object to providing for the actual needs of their children.
What fathers object to is (i) the legalized kidnapping of children from wonderful fathers, often into the custody of considerably less wonderful mothers, (ii) the elimination of the father so as to maximize the theoretical maximum support which could be demanded, (iii) the awarding of support in quanties which cannot be called anything other than slave-trading in the father's economic flesh, and (iv) the brutal threats of imprisonment which are used to crush, loot and enslave these innocent fathers.
These conditions are obvious to any compentent observer who spends a reaonable amount of time watching the goings-on in America's family courts.
And this is why the only people willing to work there after they figure out that this is going on are the types of people I describe above.
Competent people of conscience will not work at a job where they are feeding on the emotional and economic flesh of fathers, children and troubled families.
Which leaves us with with the kinds of scum which are so often found in America's family courts and related "industries" -- or "retired" therefrom.
May 19th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
nuther load of bovine excrement from the good Doc
he says "The only person that can waive payments is a judge." - actually NO under the Bradley ammendment he cannot WAIVE payments - he can STOP future payments but once its charged there is no waiving no matter what the reason.
for someone who is supposed to be an "expert" well let's just say I'm actually laughing at this - Anyone who is a so called expert should know about Bradley.
May 19th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
AnonymousPamphleteer Says: "There was a time in the U.S. when courts would state a support figure which a divorced father should pay to his ex-wife, and some -- if not many -- fathers routinely ignored this decision of the court, leaving mothers who were ligitimately in need with no practical recourse. That is a fact of American family court history which cannot be denied."
PK responds: I'll take a shot! AP, please support your claim. Define "routinely". Define "legitimate." Explain how the court's orders of support of the past is different than what you define as slavery later.
Let's put into context as well that, in the past, most married people with minor children didn't divorce and there usually was a strong reason for doing so when it occurred. The reasons could be wide and varied as well as unpleasant: alcoholism, spousal-abuse, unemployment... In those cases, it's quite reasonable to understand why the fathers didn't pay their support as ordered by the court. How many men fit the myth of the rich dad going golfing with his young mistress while the poor, selfless mother and the children starved? I wish I knew some of these guys growing up in a working class neighborhood!
If you want the courts and society to stop demonizing men today, don't buy into the demonizations of the past...
May 19th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
I am reminded of the exchange between Tommy Lee Jones and Harrison Ford in "The Fugitive":
Dr. Richard Kimble: I didn't kill my wife.
Deputy Marshal Samuel Gerard: I don't care.
It's soooo much more fun to be Gerard than Kimble, don't you think?
May 19th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Interesting comparison.
In a second film based upon the Gerard character, "US Marshalls", Gerard winds up single-mindedly pursuing the fugitive (played by Wesley Snipes) ultimately resulting in the death of one of his marshalls. In the first Fugitive film, Kimble's character saves a man's life which later goes unacknowledged by a warden. These films were fun to watch but undermined viewer confidence in the justice system since the situations were resolved by the fugitives rather than by the authority figures. It kind of reminds me of the Dirty Harry and Death Wish films that portrayed the system as overloaded and soft.
That said, both the Fugitive films were hilariously improbable. Why knock off an inmate whose already going to jail and doing so on a crowded prison plane? Wouldn't it be cheaper (and more discreet) just to have him shivved? How could Kimble solve a murder mystery while on the run in under a week when his well paid defense counsel couldn't do the same thing with months before trial?
May 19th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
@JD
Excellent example!
May 19th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
He likes to use the word responsible. If women were 50% responsible for financial support of their children then this guy would be out of a job.
May 19th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
"How a debt comes into existence is of no concern to the collector. Whether the debtor believes or feels that the debt is justified or appropriate is of no concern to the collector. The feelings of the debtor have no bearing on whether or not the debt is owed"
okay. But what if the guy simply cannot pay? i.e. he doesn't have the money? You know the saying.."you can't sqeeze blood from a rock". It's been my experience with debt collectors that they do not understand the simple words "I cannot". Instead they keep badgering the debtor, as if money will fall from the sky while they're talking on the phone. To my mind that's harrassment. Not to mention calling the debtor (a.k.a. father) at work, or at 1 a.m., or etc.
May 19th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Of course if the debt happens to be for a car or a house, he's right, but we treat chidren differently. In the case of child support, the debt is a function of how much the obligor earns. That's not true in the case of a house or car. So it matters very much how the debt comes into being. Just not to this guy.
May 19th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
This is the kind of rant you write when you're doing an immoral job and need to find some sort of justification for it. Let's cut through the bullshit doc, this isn't about children or anything else. It's about you, and your ilk, making a buck. The "we're just doing a job" excuse is bullshit, the cops that turned the hoses on civil rights protesters were just "doing a job," that didn't make it moral or excusable. Just cut with the BS, you found a collections niche that's sweeter than normal collections because we have this one civil debt in which we allow more harrassment than in most others. After you take a healthy cut I'm sure you're happy to pass on whatever happens to be left over. The only reason a collection agency wants to know anything about anyone is because you want to know whether there's any money to be had.
Strong arm tactics in collections are the same as torture to extract information, both are ineffective. In many cases the methods employed make a debtor resolved not to pay simply for the prinicipal of the matter. One of the primary reasons why child support collections fails is simply because there's no ability to be reasonable with the collection. Few civil debt collections are resolved for the full amount owed, and if collectors were as inflexible as child support collectors very few collections debts would ever be settled. You can rant about children all you want, the fact is you can't expect people to send in their entire salary or make significant life style changes to pay a debt. If child support were settled for realstic amounts, as it used to be in the past, it wouldn't be such a hard ball issue. As it is now it just makes realistic sense to wait out the 10 years and allow the money to become uncollectable.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
There is a flaw in "Doc's" presentation: "People don't like to be held responsible..." That is just how CSE sees it. What he did not address is what happens when the debt collector is wrong. In each one of my credit card agreements, there is a clause that if one of us believes the debt is wrong, there is a process in which both parties can enter in which helps abritrate the accuracy of the debt.
This is not the case with CSE, at least not in Illinois. By law, all they have to do is determine an account is in arrears and order you employer to withhold extra amounts determined by CSE and the employer must do it.
Now, here's the catch. Even if an audit finds out that they were wrong, they simply call it "a gift to your children." There is no way to get the money refunded back to the non-custodial so he/she can maintain their home for their kids. Additionally, judges are, by statute, powerless to stop CSE from take out extra payments. So, the obligor is at the complete mercy of the debtor and is powerless to stop them, even if the debtor is completely in the wrong. And, the debtor is free to use whatever bookkeeping method they see fit with absolutely no oversight.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Dr. Kimble had a trial.
Child support debtors on the other hand...
May 19th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
John Boy says: "He likes to use the word responsible. If women were 50% responsible for financial support of their children then this guy would be out of a job."
PK responds: Bravo! What an excellent expose of chivalrous double standards: Men are expected to be hyper-"responsible" in order to offset the total lack of responsibility the courts assign women.
The stories about the children starving in their mother's care are supposed to elicit sympathy and simultaneously rage against the father for not paying up, but at the same time they raise the question of why she's raising them in the first place. Why not the parent whose supposed to be "responsible" for them?
May 19th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
DCR Says:
May 19th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
what Doc fails to state also is he is a deadbeat as well. As I have posted before several of the so called single mothers he is working on behalf of have made the claim he hasn't turned over the money to them.
Doc Says: I challenge you to prove that statement.
After my last article you posted a link and made the same claim. http://www.fact.on.ca/news/news0005/wp000518.htm
There is absolutely nothing in that article that supports your claim. The article refers to Child Support Network, Inc. which I had, and have absolutely no affiliation with at all.
The article does quote me. However, it does not accuse me either directly or indirectly of not turning money over to any clients of CSI.
Doc
May 19th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
# Norman L. Says:
May 19th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
okay. But what if the guy simply cannot pay? i.e. he doesn't have the money? You know the saying.."you can't sqeeze blood from a rock".
Those who truly cannot pay are identified and the case is either put on hold or totally suspended.
It's been my experience with debt collectors that they do not understand the simple words "I cannot". Instead they keep badgering the debtor, as if money will fall from the sky while they're talking on the phone. To my mind that's harrassment. Not to mention calling the debtor (a.k.a. father) at work, or at 1 a.m., or etc
If debt collectors simply took people at their word, such as "I cannot" no money would ever get collected. Given that virtually every debtor and child support obligor gives that excuse, yet still can find the money, it would appear to the logical person that the debtor or obligor was lying. The collection industry as a whole (consumer, commercial and child support) collects billions of dollars every year from people who say that they cannot pay.
Doc
May 19th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Doc didn't start the fire, he's just the typical "bureacratic Iron triangle" American "Non-profit " bureaucrat.
I read somewhere, their are now more pork bureacrats living off the public tax dollar in America, than in communist Russia. These pork-o-crats that feed off the public dollar, keep their positions by feeding this feminist victim hysteria.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Agreed. "Doc" is just a cog in the machine.
The real issue here is who is allowing the "activists" to legislate the family unit out of existence? Who are the players in the political game that are making it profitable to be a single mother?
May 19th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
“One of the most reviled professions in America is that of a debt or bill collector. The primary reason is simple: People do not like to be forced to be responsible.”
Either that or they don’t like to be forced into bankruptcy because some shyster trapped them into a brutal contract. Not wanting to be responsible may indeed be a reason, but I don’t think you can prove it is the primary reason.
“How a debt comes into existence is of no concern to the collector.”
Which is why yours is such an amoral profession. Tell us something- if you look into it and see that the debtor is expected to pay $1500 per month in child support when he only makes $1200, do you not have the right to drop that particular case? And if you do have said right, how often have you exercised it?
“The majority of clients of private agencies typically have not remarried and are employed. The average arrearage placed with an agency is typically at least three times the $5,000 threshold.”
Geez, Doc, didn’t you recently claim that all statistics were subjective? Or does the claim of subjectivity apply only top your opposition’s statistics?
“It is extremely rare that an account would be placed with a private agency where the obligor is currently making payments. Hence, the vast majority of cases will show an obligor who has not made any payments for a minimum of one year, with most not having made any payments for a number of years.”
Gee, more of those nasty “subjective” stats. I find it hard to believe that the vast majority of the non-custodials you deal with have defaulted for at least a year, and that most have defaulted for several years. Perhaps you can prove this, but I suspect you are trying to make it seem as if the vast majority of custodial parents who hire you are calm, patient women who wait at least a year before going after the dad, and that the vast majority of “deadbeats” are scum who have evaded their responsibilities for at least a year as opposed to missing the occasional payment.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Doc says: "Given that virtually every debtor and child support obligor gives that excuse, yet still can find the money, it would appear to the logical person that the debtor or obligor was lying. The collection industry as a whole (consumer, commercial and child support) collects billions of dollars every year from people who say that they cannot pay."
PK responds: Doc is lying himself by claiming that debtors who claim to be unable to pay, but whose support orders are paid later, are lying. In the case of child-support enforcement, when people are thrown in jail (as claimed by the article), it's the relatives who bail them out hence they are often telling the truth that they say they personally don't have the money. And Doc, you know this. (Unless private collectors do not have at their means the ability to get commissions from judges throwing non-payers into jail.)
Doc, you have about as much in common with "the collection industry as a whole" as Hustler and Barely Legal does with magazine publishing.
May 20th, 2008 at 12:00 am
#Doc said,
"If debt collectors simply took people at their word, such as "I cannot" no money would ever get collected. Given that virtually every debtor and child support obligor gives that excuse, yet still can find the money"
1) I didn't say to necessarily "take them at the word" in the beginning. What I'm talking about is when, say, over the phone, the debtor repeatedly responds with "No, I really do not have the money..", but the collector keeps at it forever, badgering the guy for months on end. You've got to realize there's a point of diminishing returns..once a guy has made that statement several times, that's probably a good indication that he is either a) telling the truth; or b) he just flat out ain't gonna pay. And it's my suspicion that most of the guys who fall into category 'a' end up being assumed by the collectors and the court as instead falling into 'b' by default, and treated accordingly. Which raises,
2) If virtually every one can find the money, then why are so many guys in jail? Are you implying something like, "well, I know that guy has the money, but he wants to use it for something else like buying a car, or beer.." How can anyone possibly "know" such a thing?? That's complete speculation. If that's the mentality, just throw them all in jail to begin with, when they first fall behind on payments, and don't even get collectors involved!
May 20th, 2008 at 1:40 am
Official what, exactly? When did Doc McCoy ever serve in an official capacity for any state or federal agency?
Taken verbatim from the Commonwealth of Australia Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives Official
Hansard, Wednesday, 16 February 2000. THIRTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSION--FIFTH PERIOD
URL: www.aph.gov.au/Hansard/reps/dailys/dr160200.pdf See page 208 of this document.
Child Support Intervention: Establishment in Australia
(Question No. 1051)
Mr Price asked the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 23 November 1999:
(1) Has his attention been drawn to a US debt collection agency known as CSI (Child Support
Intervention of Texas) that has recently established in Australia.
(2) Has his attention also been drawn to a claim by Mr Michael McCoy, the managing director of
CSI, that it has Federal Government imprimatur; if so, is the statement correct; if so, how.
(3) Is he able to say whether CSI has issued “a bill of no rights” for non-residential parents; if so, (a)
what is it and (b) does the Government support the approach.
Mr Anthony—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
(1) Yes. The commencement of Child Support Intervention (CSI) operations in Australia has been
brought to the attention of the Government.
(2) Yes, I am aware of a press article in which Mr McCoy made this claim. However, there is no
truth in Mr McCoy’s claim that the Australian Government supports the entry of organisations such as
Child Support Intervention into the Australian market. The General Manager of the Child Support
Agency responded to this article on Monday 15 November 1999.
(3) Yes. Child Support Intervention has issued a ‘Bill Of No Rights’ for non-residential parents. I
understand the bill appears on CSI’s internet site.
(a) The Bill of No Rights sets out what are termed ‘common sense guidelines’ for non-custodial
parents and liberal policy makers. The Bill declares that non-custodial parents who are unable to pay
their child support have no rights.
(b) No. The Government does not support this approach.
The original link on the CSI website is www.deadbeatparent.com/norights.htm
This site is inactive, however it is archived by the WayBack machine at archive.org.
web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.deadbeatparent.com/norights.htm
For example, the last time the page was archived was on February 3, 2002:
web.archive.org/web/20020203185844/http://www.deadbeatparent.com/norights.htm
The archived copy of www.deadbeatparent.com/norights.htm states at the bottom that "Child Support Intervention is not affiliated with any government agency."
Doc McCoy's screed repeats the articles of the "No Bill of Rights," which appeared on its website.
Here is an excerpt:
"ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to complain about the amount of child support that you are required to pay. When you complain, you are putting a dollar value on the lives and well being of your children which demonstrates to everyone that you are self-centered and shallow and do not have the best interests of your children as your top priority in life."
May 20th, 2008 at 2:11 am
Link to the Bill of No Rights in the archived Child Support Intervention web site:
http://web.archive.org/web/20020203185844/http://www.deadbeatparent.com/norights.htm
Comments asserting the CSI was affiliated with any state or government agency are mistaken. The web site in the link above states that CSI was not "affiliated with any government agency." This raises the question of the meaning of "Official" in Glenn Sacks' billing of Doc McCoy as a "child support enforcement official." Did Glenn research this?
CSI was a private firm which engaged in collection contracts with custodial parents for payment of child support obligations owed by non-custodial parents. The custodial parent would become the second obligor in this arrangement: to the collection agency, for approximately 30% of child support collected (the amount may have been reduced over time), payable to the collection agency.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:24 am
Does this unreal McCoy ever respond to the concept that people are taking great issue with the legitimacy of the "debts" which create his intended "debtor" torture victim?
It seems that his writings take as a baseline assumption that the "debtor"' has been charged with legitimate financial debts in the first place.
Or is his self-serving reply to the question of whether the "support" burdens are proper simply:
"that's not my job".
Well in that case, engaging in dialog with him is absurd. If he doesn't have the IQ points to comprehend that a primary concern of people who take issue with him and his dirty little trade, is that he was engaging in extracting slave-blood-money from men who should never have been so bled by the courts in the first place, then he is an irrelevant bag man who is not knowledgeable about the fact that he was, in a very great percentage of his "cases" essentially extracting "stolen property" from people.
That is, if the burdens assigned to these men were in fact unlawful in magnitude, then "Doc" (who is obviously the furthest "thing" from a doctor of any type) was forcibly collecting the stolen property from the victims.
And that folks, would appear to fall under the category of a felony.
You see "Doc", if it turns out at the end of the day, that American "family" courts wind up being unmasked as the criminal enterprises which many people feel that they are, then folks like YOU, can be implicated for your role in the criminal enterprise.
Oh, you didn't "know" it was a crime? You were "assigned" these "debts" by government officials?
Maybe you ought to read a little history.
And then maybe you will understand how many long-term, government-backed undertakings thrugh out the history of the world were later declared to have been criminal in nature. And those who were involved in them punished. I'm sure this sounds downright unthinkable to you.
But then again, you don't understand much outside of the narrow instructions you were acting upon. Kind of reminds me of the weak defenses of a typical war criminal. "I was just doing my job."
Crappy defense "Doc".
May 20th, 2008 at 2:50 am
From the archived CSI web site:
Not to mention ensure the collection of the 30% cut.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:57 am
This is a matter of jurisprudence. No individual has any obligation, moral or legal, to abide by a law that is not equitable in regard to shared burden for if it is not in accordance with distributive justice and equity the law promulgated and thus the law adjudicated is not in accord with the common good. It is a law secundum quid but is not a law simpliciter. This is what this man does not seem to get. Countries come and countries go and as they do so, the same is the case with their rule of law. The welfare state, which violates the principle of subsidiarity, cannot be supported and no matter the debt obligation of the debtor, in light of the means by which the debt was accumulated through 'no-fault' divorce, there is no moral or legal obligation to pay that debt whatsoever. What is irrelevant is the code of law and the rule of law that does not adjudicate that law with in accordance with the common good. Mr. McCoy seems to think that law is infallible and does not even offer the definition of law so how can he reasonably state that it does not matter whether the debt is legitimate, justified or appropriate? The reality is that he is a product of legal positivism which rules America now but that legal philosophy, political philosophy, jurisprudence cannot be sustained ad infinitum and when it ends, Mr. McCoy will rightfully be styled as a traitor to his country and to his people. He is a Machiavelli that believes that "the pleasure of the king is the rule of law." Well Mr. McCoy, this will not do and your ideological position could never and will never hold its position in the face of authentic Ethics. You were no more than a tool of a illegitimate and immoral system and it is best that you remain in China because you are no more than a traitor and deserve what all useful idiots deserve--can you guess what that is?
May 20th, 2008 at 3:38 am
30%, that's probably on the low end of the scale. I'm sure people like Doc have all kinds of ways to add profit, legal and otherwise, to their collection activities.
May 20th, 2008 at 7:51 am
"Those who truly cannot pay are identified and the case is either put on hold or totally suspended. "
I beg to differ with you Doc. It does not matter whether a man can pay or not. If he has to live on the streets or
in some homeless shelter because of unemployment, etc. he is still forced to pay. In most cases, a judge's order requiring a man to pay is based solely on the word of some caseworker that states he has the ability to pay, not on any evidence or proof that this is, in actuality, the case. Furthermore, many employers will no longer hire people who allegedly owe child support so how is a man to pay (ie Transportation Safety workers such as baggage screeners at airports)? Such matters do not matter to the family court system. It is either PAY UP OR ELSE!!!
You also mention in your article that all cases are verified before enforcement takes place. Well I know of a situation where the case was outright child support fraud but was still enforced to the fullest extent possible, simply because it came from out of state, and was based solely on the word of some greedy scum-bag of a caseworker that money was owed. No verification procedures were ever followed.
The caseworker pushing the issue claimed the original support order was allegedly filed in a court, in a municipality that does not, nor has it ever existed. The court, in which the first support petition ever received by the "obligor" (10 years after the divorce) was allegedly issued, reported that there was no record in their court that such a petition or any subsequent child support order was ever filed there. Even this proof did not stop the family court system from forcing this man to pay (under threat of incarceration) long after the children that were allegedly his were emancipated. Nor, did it stop the system from continuing to destroy his life for many years after that.
This is just another example of the so-called "family court system" making as much money as possible for themselves and to Hell with the children of divorce. The children are nothing more than the vehicle used to make state governments, and private, for-profit collection agencies under state contract, rich beyond all imagination. In most cases, the ex does not even receive the entire amount she is entitled to, or may not receive any money at all. This is because the "system" and the private corporations that run it take most if not all the money she is entitled to for their "fees". How is this supposed to help the children? Of course, no proof that the payment of such fees was agreed to exists. They just have to be paid per the caseworker in charge of a given case. Perhaps it pays part of his/her salary or for some other perk he/she gets for being a bottom-feeder (i.e. cars, property, exotic vacations, etc)? Who knew CSE could be such a lucrative business?
May 20th, 2008 at 8:42 am
DL: Initially, there appears to be some misunderstanding.
I worked totally in the private sector and not for the government. Hence, my comments about putting a case on hold or suspending the case were exclusively within the purviews of actions that my private agency could and would take. The actions that a judge or a representative of the local or state CSE Office takes are an entirely different matter. In a future article I will be addressing those issues and concerns.
Re: Employment of those who "allegedly" owe child support. Using your example of the baggage screeners for TSA, they are able to legally justify their refusal to offer employment if there is delinquent child support. A poor credit bureau report will also disqualify someone from securing employment. In the "security and police world" people who show irresponsibility in financial matters and affairs will always be disqualified for various reasons. TSA will, and does, hire people who have a current child support obligation and are not in arrears.
Re: Verification: Once again, I am referring to the way that my private agency handled things.
With your story about "someone" that was held to task for an order that did not legally exist, I find a number of holes in the story in general. I find the holes because I know what is required for an interstate enforcement action by a public agency. Now, it is possible that the story you are relating is true and 100% accurate, but I am very skeptical. Second hand stories are always very difficult to accept. Since you state that you "know of a situation" rather than know of a man, would indicate to me that the story is being related further down the line than "second hand."
If you have specific details - or could encourage the individual who was affected by this - I would be more than happy to investigate the case and report back either privately or publicly. You, or the individual can contact Glenn for my e-mail address.
As for your last paragraph, my private agency never attempted to obtain, nor was it ever awarded a 'government contract' for the collection of child support on behalf of any state. My agency contracted directly with custodial parents and not a government agency. Thus, my clients knew full well what the fees would be. However, I would take issue with a number of your comments on the issue. You comments appear to be the result of disinformation about how the system works as opposed to any first hand knowledge.
Doc
May 20th, 2008 at 8:54 am
Doc just states the facts...
Well, I'd like to state some facts too!
Fact #1: I'm not behind on child support.
Fact#2: Child support collection resembles very closely 'Slavery' which is unconstitutional in this country.
Fact#3: The recipient of the child support money is not required to be "responsible" in any way before recieving the money, and is not held accountable for what he/she spends the money on.
Fact#4: There is a negative stigma toward those who have to pay support.
Fact#5: There are some who are getting screwed by the support amount owed, I know a few.
Fact#6: There is no proof that the children recieve the benefit of this money, and in effect, it shouldnt be called "child support", but more like "ex spouse support" the divorce is never actually final, justice has not been served.
There are more facts, but just to keep this short, I agree that non/ custodial sides both need to be responsible. So, that being said, who is keeping track of the custodial parents finance, while there are head hunters watching for debtees? Why is there a record keeper for one and not the other??
Answer that for me, "DOC"!!!!!
May 20th, 2008 at 9:02 am
One more thing:
I support the shared parent bills that are being posted. It just makes more sense that the financial decisions regarding the child can be discussed openly instead of just making one person pay money and the other person throw away the money on whatever he/she decides. It takes two to make a child, it should take two to follow through on the rest of that child's life and well being, and leave people with useless one sided middleman facts and the government out of the equation. To all who read this, write your lawmakers!!
Write them and call them!!
May 20th, 2008 at 9:21 am
ryan:
Fact#6: There is no proof that the children recieve the benefit of this money, and in effect, it shouldnt be called "child support", but more like "ex spouse support" the divorce is never actually final, justice has not been served.
And that is why I sometimes call it baby-mama support. Say what you want about Kanye West but his song "Gold Digga" isn't too far off base.
Plain and simple Doc sounds just like a soldier that aids in killing a village full of confirmed innocent civilians and he defends himself with the claim "I was just following orders."
May 20th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Ryan Says: Fact #1: I'm not behind on child support.
Doc Says: Good.
Ryan Says: Fact#2: Child support collection resembles very closely 'Slavery' which is unconstitutional in this country.
Doc Says: That is not a fact, but instead an opinion that is not supported by any legal theories.
Ryan Says: Fact#3: The recipient of the child support money is not required to be "responsible" in any way before recieving the money, and is not held accountable for what he/she spends the money on.
Doc Says: That is not an accurate fact. There are legal remedies available to accomplish what you want to accomplish in the majority of the states.
Ryan Says: Fact#4: There is a negative stigma toward those who have to pay support.
Doc Says: That is your perception,and not a fact. People who pay child support in a timely manner will receive much more respect than someone who does not.
Ryan Says: Fact#5: There are some who are getting screwed by the support amount owed, I know a few.
Doc Says: What constitutes being "screwed" is subjective. I would however agree that there are some awards that are, in my subjective opinion, ridiculous - both to the excess and to the minimum.
Ryan Says: Fact#6: There is no proof that the children recieve the benefit of this money, and in effect, it shouldnt be called "child support", but more like "ex spouse support" the divorce is never actually final, justice has not been served.
Doc Says: This is a re-hash of your "Fact # 3." Could some custodial parents spend the child support better than what they do? Of course, some could. To make it sound like a rampant problem, is an unfounded allegation.
Ryan Says: There are more facts, but just to keep this short, I agree that non/ custodial sides both need to be responsible. So, that being said, who is keeping track of the custodial parents finance, while there are head hunters watching for debtees? Why is there a record keeper for one and not the other??
Answer that for me, "DOC"!!!!!
Doc Answers: If you want closer scrutiny of the recipients of child support, then it would behoove you to begin pressing for legislation in your respective state for such accountability. Then, you as one who is concerned about that issue, could pay someone like myself to go in and make sure that everything is justifiable. Of course, if you think that is a problem in your own particular situation right now, you could press the issue and attempt to have some judicial oversight of the matter.
Danny (and others) Says: Plain and simple Doc sounds just like a soldier that aids in killing a village full of confirmed innocent civilians and he defends himself with the claim "I was just following orders."
Doc Says: I put myself in a position to where I did what was necessary to compel people to follow the law and the orders of the court. So, no, I was not "just following orders." You, and others apparently do not agree with the law or the orders that were issued by the court. That is neither my problem nor does it give any credibility to your criticisms. In the long run, with much of what has been written here, it makes the vast majority of you look like either deadbeats or deadbeat enablers.
Fact of the matter is that the majority of people support holding deadbeats accountable. Child support requirements have been around for decades, and those same requirements will still be around after all of us are long gone. Shared parenting, even if it is adopted across the board, is not going to resolve the problem of deadbeat parents. There are always going to be people who do not want to be parents, or who are perceived as being unfit as parents, and they are going to be required to pay child support. Of course, they are all going to complain about the child support or the courts - and feel justified in not paying anything.
Doc
May 20th, 2008 at 9:50 am
Thomas, you sir are a fine courtier!
You mention "Doc" may be just a usefull idiot, in the new lexicon, we call the "tools".
May 20th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Why is child support treated as an outstanding debt? I still have a hard time calling it a "debt." What if mom and dad were still married, and dad worked and paid the mortgage, the utilities and put food on the table. Where does a debt come into play on this? For the state or a private industry to treat financial support as a debt is crazy. What makes more sense to me is that if mom and dad are divorced, mom needs to take care of her financial responsibilities and so does dad. But the system in place is horrible. What it boils down to is women know that they can divorce daddy and get a paycheck, and the ratios that they determine what daddy pays is way out of wack. I can't claim this myself because I don't pay a lot, but my friends that pay support pay too much.
The worst of it is if dad falls on hard times and gets behind. What kills me is that if the parents were still together and dad fell on hard times, the whole family feels it. I just don't think that child support should be lumped into the same catagory of credit card, or consumer debt.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Oh, one more thing. These "collection agencies" have no real regulation and are money making ventures. The sad part is that the government agencies that regulate child support payments are more wacked out than these private agencies. Collection of child support is a farce, and people want to "feel good" about the people that pay on time. How about feeling good about a mother not alienating a child from a father. That is more noble.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Edited version
Thomas, you sir are a fine courtier!
You mention "Doc" may be just a usefull idiot, in the new lexicon, we call them "tools".
May 20th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Ryan Says: Fact#2: Child support collection resembles very closely 'Slavery' which is unconstitutional in this country.
Doc Says: That is not a fact, but instead an opinion that is not supported by any legal theories.
PK says: Doc, that's a rather broad barn door you've opened there. If you had merely argued that the law didn't recognize child-support as slavery, I would have agreed with you. But unsupported by ANY legal theories?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment
"any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.[1]"
Naturally, there are exceptions to the At-Will employment laws on both sides including union shops or implied contracts where employers establish procedures for discharging employees and employee contracts, entered upon freely and knowingly, by employees or military servicemen.
There is also a legal definition of slavery (it would be difficult to outlaw slavery without a legal definition of it). Consider this citation from federal criminal code:
http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=293002315865+8+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
"Sec. 1583. Enticement into slavery
Whoever kidnaps or carries away any other person, with the intent that such other person be sold into involuntary servitude, or held as a slave; or
Whoever entices, persuades, or induces any other person to go on board any vessel or to any other place with the intent that he may be made or held as a slave, or sent out of the country to be so made or held--
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If death results from the violation of this section, or if the violation includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or the attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, the defendant shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both."
I'm sure others here can do a more thorough google search for examples of how legal and dictionary definitions of slavery and involuntary servitude very closely match the child-support model of forced labor for the other parent. Naturally, the existance of these legal codes doesn't necessarily imply enforcement or recognition. For example, Jim Crow style laws were clearly unconstitutional but weren't recognized as such for decades. I mean, there's no way that the law could ever be wrong in the united states when it came to something like slavery, right?
May 20th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Bill C: Good comments - and deserving of a response.
First, child support is not considered to be a debt. In both practical and legal terms, it is considered to be an obligation. To that extent, it exceeds the classifications that accompany a consumer debt. Plain, short and to the point: People have an obligation to support and care for their children.
What it boils down to is women know that they can divorce daddy and get a paycheck,
How often does this really happen Bill? In reality this is just more negative hype promoted by the MRM members to try to justify their opposition to child support.
The worst of it is if dad falls on hard times and gets behind. What kills me is that if the parents were still together and dad fell on hard times, the whole family feels it.
In intact families, things are a lot different across the board. Dad gets a raise and the whole family benefits. I have yet to a case where Dad starts making more money, receives a windfall profit, and voluntarily shares it with his ex and kids.
It can be argued that in such a situation Dad shouldn't be required to share with the ex because that is the result of the fruits of his labor. Many compelling arguments for that type of thinking. And, that is the way that it works out in reality. Dad tries to hide his income and his windfalls.
So, if it is OK for Dad to look out only for himself and not share, why should the ex and kids be required to share his misery and agony?
The argument that private agencies have no real regulation is not quite true, especially in recent years. There are regulations on the industry in many different states.
Of course the private agencies want to show a profit. Every business wants to make a profit. A profit is necessary to remain in business. Critics of the industry like to think that private agencies are making a fortune which simply is not true.
How about feeling good about a mother not alienating a child from a father. That is more noble.
There is, I fear, a big discrepancy between those who claim parental alienation and those who have actually experienced it. Regardless of the numbers though, people who deal with parental alienation are a new cottage industry of the so called divorce industry. You best believe that they are all going to be making a profit as well.
As for something being noble or not noble - that is all subjective. It all depends on whose ox is being gored.
Doc
May 20th, 2008 at 10:57 am
PK - You and others in the MRM define child support as slavery.
The courts have continually and repeatedly held that it is not slavery. That would mean that your analysis is without merit.
However, feel free to continue to beat a dead horse if it makes you feel good.
Doc
May 20th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Danny (and others) Says: Plain and simple Doc sounds just like a soldier that aids in killing a village full of confirmed innocent civilians and he defends himself with the claim "I was just following orders."
Doc Says: I put myself in a position to where I did what was necessary to compel people to follow the law and the orders of the court. So, no, I was not "just following orders."
PK says: I think the argument you're responding to is emotional hyperbole but your specious response only gives it credibility. Following orders of the court is "following orders".
Doc continues: "You, and others apparently do not agree with the law or the orders that were issued by the court. That is neither my problem nor does it give any credibility to your criticisms."
PK responds: Yet... here you are! You claim it's not your problem yet you feel a need to defend and justify yourself not only to us but others. You recognize that your profession is reviled and seem uncomfortable with that reality and try to argue you're no different than anyone else enforcing the law or making people live up to so-called responsibilities. Yet, policemen enforce the law and they are largely regarded as heroic civil servants, yes? Same with the military. The difference is that those men, whatever the flaws of their calling, put their lives on the line and often protect people.
So the good news is that you acknowledge that your role (bill collector) and the sub-role of that (child-support enforcement) is becoming increasingly unpopular. Hmmm, slavery of blacks and later Jim Crow laws were also legal but unpopular which is why they were ultimately repealed. The system works, albeit slowly, but no thanks to the likes of you.
May 20th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Doc says: PK - You and others in the MRM define child support as slavery.
PK responds: I have provided dictionary and legal code citations that show that child-support is slavery.
Doc says: The courts have continually and repeatedly held that it is not slavery.
PK responds: GREAT! You have cites for this claim? Irregardless, I just said that the courts do not yet recognize child-support as slavery. That is not the same as saying that the courts (including upper courts including the supreme court) have seen challenges. I would be very interested to see records of such challenges and arguments that were made (and failed.) The courts changed their positions on a number of things over the years (such as civil rights for blacks) so I would welcome your enlightement as to what has a chance of working and what doesn't.
Doc says: That would mean that your analysis is without merit.
PK says: Are you a judge? As a self-proclaimed bagman, you're not in a position to judge, literally, what arguments have merit or not. You have about as much credibility as a metermaid and yes, I have fought their tickets in court and won. (Note: I'm not saying parking fees are slavery so don't go there! :-)
Doc says: However, feel free to continue to beat a dead horse if it makes you feel good.
PK responds: And you can continue to try to ride it. None of us here dispute that what you do is legal but whether it's moral or constitutional. You work in an immoral segment of a sleazy profession. You need to live with that, not us.
May 20th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Doc claims: "Plain, short and to the point: People have an obligation to support and care for their children. "
PK responds: Plain, short, and to the point: Welfare, legal infant abandonment, foster homes.
BillC says: What it boils down to is women know that they can divorce daddy and get a paycheck,
Doc says: How often does this really happen Bill? In reality this is just more negative hype promoted by the MRM members to try to justify their opposition to child support.
PK responds: This is a denial of the nose on your face argument. You don't know what divorce is? You don't know that women typically get custody of the children?
BillC says: The worst of it is if dad falls on hard times and gets behind. What kills me is that if the parents were still together and dad fell on hard times, the whole family feels it.
Doc says: In intact families, things are a lot different across the board. Dad gets a raise and the whole family benefits. I have yet to a case where Dad starts making more money, receives a windfall profit, and voluntarily shares it with his ex and kids.
PK responds: Even if you're telling the truth, naturally you only deal with cases where the father is paying less than he owes. Why would he voluntarily give more money when the court is going to order him to pay more anyway? In addition, they aren't necessarily his kids anymore. He doesn't have equal custody to them. You're like a bill collector asking someone to make payments on a car that's been repossessed due to no fault by him.
Doc says: It can be argued that in such a situation Dad shouldn't be required to share with the ex because that is the result of the fruits of his labor. Many compelling arguments for that type of thinking. And, that is the way that it works out in reality. Dad tries to hide his income and his windfalls.
PK responds: Just as slaves hit the underground railroad. Thank heavens for law abiding bounty hunters that caught them and slapped the chains back on... (And all legal, of course. Why are states apologizing for slavery when it was legal at the time?)
Doc says: So, if it is OK for Dad to look out only for himself and not share, why should the ex and kids be required to share his misery and agony?
PK responds: Hahahaha! Oh Doc, that's obvious! Because the ex wants his money of course! And she'll MAKE the children share his misery and agony because it beats working for a living!
Doc says: The argument that private agencies have no real regulation is not quite true, especially in recent years. There are regulations on the industry in many different states.
PK responds: Agreed. Ironically, most of those regulations in the article are due to agents in your industry abusing your clients. Tee hee. When someone sleeps with dogs, they get fleas...
Doc says: Of course the private agencies want to show a profit. Every business wants to make a profit. A profit is necessary to remain in business. Critics of the industry like to think that private agencies are making a fortune which simply is not true.
PK responds: Believe it or not, I agree with you. I know what operating expenses are and, in addition, men themselves are adapting and fish like rich basketball players defaulting on C.S. without having a lawyer or trust fund manager protecting them are getting more scarce.
BillC writes (I think): How about feeling good about a mother not alienating a child from a father. That is more noble.
Doc says: There is, I fear, a big discrepancy between those who claim parental alienation and those who have actually experienced it.
PK says: I doubt your fear is genuine. When someone starts out a sentence that way, they're both being condescending AND trying to imply that they sympathize with the other person's argument. It doesn't work for obvious reasons.
Doc says: Regardless of the numbers though, people who deal with parental alienation are a new cottage industry of the so called divorce industry. You best believe that they are all going to be making a profit as well.
PK asks: How? Honestly, I would love to know. In theory, lawyers defending men already make tons of money so how they're going to make more on this escapes me. What you are acknowledging, though, is that the status quo is cracking. I find that quite reassuring for obvious reasons and thank you for bringing it to our attention.
Doc says: As for something being noble or not noble - that is all subjective. It all depends on whose ox is being gored.
PK responds: Nonsense. You've tried to defend and justify your profession on this forum for some time now. It's obvious where we stand but certainly you are experiencing these views in the general population.
May 20th, 2008 at 11:44 am
A couple of videos from FOX.
http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=6466287&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=3.2.1
http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=6474011&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=3.2.1
May 20th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Doc hides behind the Momma's skirts that state that child support is legal and therefore so is his 'occupation.'
My response: Slavery was quite legal in the southern U.S. until the Emancipation Proclamation but that didn't make it moral - apparently Doc can't tell the difference. Therefore, the stance on this issue that Doc has maintained on this issue shows to me quite clearly that as I said before, he is a fundamentally immoral person, a reprehensible scumbag who exploits the letter of the law in order to enrich himself.
You will go down in history alongside the pre-Civil War bounty hunters.
You, Sir, are a Slimedog of the lowest order and if given the opportunity I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.
May 20th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Regarding parental alienation, the Bill of No Rights for non-custodial parents displayed prominently on the CSI parcgievd web page addresses the matterL
So far we have no explanation from Glenn Sacks or Doc McCoy why Doc McCoy was and continues to be billed as a child support enforcement "official." There is no evidence to support this claim. Indeed, Doc appears to deny that he ever acted in any official capacity for any government agency when he writes, "I worked totally in the private sector and not for the government."
The pattern of misrepresenting official status is documented and appears to be continuing. It is a matter of official public record that Doc McCoy represented to the Australian press that CSI had "the imprimateur" of the Australian Government; see page 208 of www.aph.gov.au/Hansard/reps/dailys/dr160200.pdf It is a matter of official public record that the Australian government denied any such connection; see page 208 of www.aph.gov.au/Hansard/reps/dailys/dr160200.pdf
May 20th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Shorter version of McCoy's post:
"People do not like to be forced to be responsible." ... and here are my excuses why I'm not responsible for what I do.
May 20th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Thank you, Glenn, for allowing Mr. McCoy for posting his views.
Without having read all of the comments here, and from the appearance it looks like you're about to set a world record for comments, I would first bring attention to the fact that our courts maintain a double-standard to collection of child support that is unfair and unjust to both parents and children.
When it comes to protection under the various debt collection statutes, such as the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the courts and the state will not call it a debt. But if the "debtor" seeks protection under our laws, even when the words "debt" and "debtor" are routinely used in court orders, etc., he or she will be ignored or demonized, regardless of their circumstances.
Second, we have a very big problem on this issue from the standpoint of defining what child support is, and who it is meant for. Unlike other forms of public assistance, it is not means-tested, and can be used for anything that the custodial parent desires, including drugs, alcohol, or attorney's fees. Certainly, if the states were to adopt a uniform cost-sharing model that addressed only the basic needs of raising a child, most parents would pay, learn to settle their differences quickly, and learn to collaborate. But in order to do that, people like Mr. McCoy would have to overcome the objections from feminists and trial lawyers, who would see a drastic decline in the amount of litigation over an issue that should have none to begin with.
In Illinois, we use the percent of obligor net income model, which does a great job of driving low income parents away from their children, saddling the rest of us with the bill when the other parent becomes dependent on the state.
Child support is an incredibly important issue to the parents and children of divorce. But until we start to embrace fundamental fairness in an otherwise unfair system that champions divorce and out-of-wedlock child births, the issue of absent parents and "deadbeat government" will be with us for a very long time.
Michael Burns
President/Co-founder
Illinois Alliance for Parents and Children
Chicago, Illinois
May 20th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
The real problem as regards child support collections is that the amount of "debt" that the debtor is saddled with is determined by the collection agency (CSE) and courts without regard to the ability to pay and rarely reflects the ACTUAL care costs. This is involuntary on the part of the debtor (who has absolutely no say in the matter), more often than not in excess of the actual care costs that the "debtor" should pay and borders on usery on the part of the collection agency (almost always CSE - the state/county).
In the cases of debt, such as car, home, credit card debt, and other more common forms of debt, the debtor has control over how much debt he/she can get into. Not so in the case of child support. That debt is determined by some agency scale which is out of keeping with the real costs of child raising and almost always inflated to benefit the collection agencies under Title 4.
Am I the only one that noticed that they failed to mention those points in the articles (propaganda pieces?) about child support and CS collections?
May 20th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Doc:
I agree with your statements. Your argument about the job of a collector is airtight--- they cannot collect effectively if every presumption is questioned before setting to work.
However, I share the complaint of many on the board who believe that the CS system itself is unfair. Aside from the occasional excessively high or low obligation, do you have any quibbles with the system itself? Do you believe the child support system is fair in general? What would you do to make it more fair?
I imagine that your own data in the CS environment is weighted towards the bad apples, and you rarely have had dealings with the dads that pay on time, serving their obligations under protest: would you agree?
If I were a collector, I would all collections to be morally justifiable and airtight. Consumer debt, for example, implies consent by the debtor, which makes me feel better about collecting it, although many lenders work very hard to trick people, which makes me feel worse when it happensl. What would you do to the CS system to make it better?
I see a number of clear problems with CS:
1) - it has no relation to the cost of raising a child;
2) - while a process exists to move the amount up or down, the application of the process is to effectively ratchet payments higher and not lower;
3) - the consent is not present;
4) - the obligation has an implicit and perverse deception in that the amount of sacrifice (or contribution/payment/obligation) has an inverse relationship to the object causing the obligation (the children); by this I mean that the more obligation/debt I accept for a TV, the more TV I get, but the more I pay in CS, the less child I get to see, and the incentive structure propogates that;
5) - the amounts can be set by hearsay (even if wages are proven, expenses used in the calculation can be invented);
6) - and then there's the deceptive name for the obligation: CS isn't paid to children and often doesn't support them.
Would you fix any of these issues, or do you not think they are issues? You do not believe that CS is slavery, but do you admit any discrepancy between justice and the law?
May 20th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
It needs to be mentioned that although CSI changed its policy to reduce its 30% cut of child support collections after any three year period, this applied only to collections for children under the age of majority. Moreover, if the child support award was increased, the 30% take would begin again, with the new increase, and continue after another 36 month period, starting from the date of the increase.
May 20th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Doc's comments exhibit no insight, offer no solutions and inspire no confidence. His claims of special knowledge of the supposedly fundamentally human motivations men have for getting behind on child support possess neither logical relevancy nor empirical support. To the contrary, as is well known, the vast majority of men pay their support precisely as ordered. So are those of us who pay less than human? Similarly, as large studies have shown, the majority of those who get behind do so because of a singularly non-psychological cause: unemployment. Are we to accept Doc's limited anecdotal evidence as superior to legitimate research findings? Surely everyone deserves to have his or her voice heard, but having heard this one, I can't say I'm interested in hearing more.
Mark
May 20th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Some of us are interested in some explanation for the bogus and misleading claim of being a child support enforcement official. But, like the deadbeats who refused to admit their obligations, we'll never hear any explanation for this bogus and misleading claim. Anyone writing under the banner of being a child support enforcement official is intellectually obligated to explain why they continue to do this. after the bogus claim has been thoroughly exploded. We'll never hear any explanation for why the Australian legislature mentioned CSI in its proceedings. We'll never hear any explanation about the comments made to the Australian press.
May 20th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Thanks PK
May 20th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
I'm afraid I just don't believe Doc, or anyoner like him. Period. He/She is a bottom feeder, and disgusts me....and THIS is coming from a USED CAR SALESMAN. You should be proud Doc, the second most reviled profession in North America just became third.....wanna guess where CS enforcement comes in?
May 21st, 2008 at 12:06 am
We're never going to get any answers about the meaning of "official." Why are we motivated to listen to a person who misrepresents himself as an official? Glenn Sacks does not come off looking good in this case: how could he bill someone as an official who denies ever having acted in an official capacity in any government agency, at least with respect to child support? This matter needs to be resolved.
May 21st, 2008 at 12:25 am
Xlp Thlplylp Says: We're never going to get any answers about the meaning of "official." Why are we motivated to listen to a person who misrepresents himself as an official? Glenn Sacks does not come off looking good in this case: how could he bill someone as an official who denies ever having acted in an official capacity in any government agency, at least with respect to child support? This matter needs to be resolved.
The Dictionary Says:
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
of·fi·cial
Audio Help (ə-fĭsh'əl) Pronunciation Key
adj.
1. Of or relating to an office or a post of authority: official duties.
2. Authorized by a proper authority; authoritative: official permission.
3. Holding office or serving in a public capacity: an official representative.
4. Characteristic of or befitting a person of authority; formal: an official banquet.
5. Authorized by or contained in the U.S. Pharmacopoeia or National Formulary. Used of drugs.
n.
1. One who holds an office or position, especially one who acts in a subordinate capacity for an institution such as a corporation or governmental agency.
2. Sports A referee or umpire.
The Dictionary
May 21st, 2008 at 12:42 am
Now, which of these senses of the word official is intended in the phrase "Child Support Enforcement Official"? Being a CEO or director of a collection agency is not the image that "Child Support Official" connotes, since 'enforcement' suggests government affiliation. The use of the word 'official' to describe a person who ran a private collection agency with no government affiliation can fairly be called misleading.
May 21st, 2008 at 1:20 am
I wondered a little about the word "official" when I first did the first Doc post, but then aren't leaders of corporations sometimes called "corporate officials"? Anyway, I explained clearly in every post what position Doc actually held, so I don't quite see the reason for the furor, but I agree we could probably find a better word than "Official." Perhaps "Agent"? "Officer"?
May 21st, 2008 at 1:35 am
Thanks for posting, Michael Burns. Very enlightening.
May 21st, 2008 at 2:07 am
"Jackboot"?
May 21st, 2008 at 2:59 am
They are more properly and commonly called corporate officers--in any case, the phrase enforcement officer strongly suggests a government position. My brothers in law enforcement agree. Corporate officer is more accurate that law enforcement official, which is extremely misleading.
Now what about the false and misleading statements made in the Australian press?
May 21st, 2008 at 3:04 am
Andy S. Says: Aside from the occasional excessively high or low obligation, do you have any quibbles with the system itself? Do you believe the child support system is fair in general?
Doc Says: What is fair or unfair in this particular arena is going to be determined by those who are affected by it. I hear NCP's complaining that child support is set too high and that there is no accountability. I hear CP's complaining that the NCP lied about his income and that the government doesn't do enough to collect money for them. I hear NCP's new spouses complaining that child support is taking money away from the second family. I hear CP's new spouses complaining that the NCP isn't paying any child support at all. Ultimately, I don't have a dog in the fight at all. I'm neither a CP or an NCP, and never have been.
Andy S. Says: I imagine that your own data in the CS environment is weighted towards the bad apples, and you rarely have had dealings with the dads that pay on time, serving their obligations under protest: would you agree?
Doc Says: Naturally, in the collections business the data is going to be all about the bad apples.
As for dads that pay on time: Growing up, my dad paid his ex-wife child support regularly, and on time. In later years, my half-brother then also paid child support to his ex in full and on time. My ex brother-in-law also paid on time, and in full after a bit of prodding from my family. I also dated three women over the years who never received a dime in child support. My ex-wife never received a dime in child support. I also know socially more women who do not receive child support than those that do. I also know a few men who to my face would fully support going after the deadbeats, who themselves were deadbeats. With that description, I am referring to men who haven't paid a dime in years and who have made no attempt to see their kids.
Andy S. Says: Consumer debt, for example, implies consent by the debtor, which makes me feel better about collecting it, although many lenders work very hard to trick people, which makes me feel worse when it happensl. What would you do to the CS system to make it better?
Doc Says: In a utopian world, non-custodial parents would all "consent" to paying child support. Unfortunately, that world does not exist.
Andy S. Says: I see a number of clear problems with CS:
1) - it has no relation to the cost of raising a child;
Doc Says: Are you talking about "basic costs" or what the child is used to? There are many variables that need to be considered when discussing the cost of raising a child.
Andy S. Says: 2) - while a process exists to move the amount up or down, the application of the process is to effectively ratchet payments higher and not lower;
Doc Says: The statutory percentages of net income remain the same for the payment of child support. If someone says that they are paying 50 to 65% of their income in child support they are being only half honest. Part of what they are paying is arrearage.
Andy S. Says: 3) - the consent is not present;
Doc Says: You seem to be implying that the obligor / NCP should consent to the amount that is going to be paid in order to make things "all right." We both know that is not going to end up being fair and equitable for the CP.
Andy S. Says: 4) - the obligation has an implicit and perverse deception in that the amount of sacrifice (or contribution/payment/obligation) has an inverse relationship to the object causing the obligation (the children); by this I mean that the more obligation/debt I accept for a TV, the more TV I get, but the more I pay in CS, the less child I get to see, and the incentive structure propogates that;
Doc Says: Essentially then, you are putting a price tag on the heads of children. I know where you are going with this, and you are basically getting into a whole new can of worms with a whole different set of both official and implied rules.
Andy S. Says: 5) - the amounts can be set by hearsay (even if wages are proven, expenses used in the calculation can be invented);
Doc Says: The obligor can also "invent" expenses to attempt to mitigate the child support award. Part of this is human nature. People applying for a loan will provide an Income/Expense Sheet showing that they spend minimal amounts of money to make it look like they will be able to easily pay off the loan. Those same people, if applying for an educational grant will show much higher expenses than what are being incurred to increase their chances of getting a bigger grant.
Andy S. Says: 6) - and then there's the deceptive name for the obligation: CS isn't paid to children and often doesn't support them.
Doc Says: Of course, you don't have any figures to back up this claim, other than the fact that child support isn't paid directly to the children.
Andy S. Says: Would you fix any of these issues, or do you not think they are issues? You do not believe that CS is slavery, but do you admit any discrepancy between justice and the law?
Doc Says: No matter what, what one person thinks or believes is fair, another person will disagree. When you walk into a court room and a judge gives you everything you want, you say that judge was fair. Good judge. When you walk into a court room and don't get what you want, you say the judge is crooked, on the take, unfair, etc. etc.
Each case has to be judged on its own merits. What we have is a situation where two people cannot agree on anything. As a result, they must turn to a third party to determine what will be what. Each judge has his or her own particular quirks, ideas and beliefs - none of which violate the law. But, those factors can influence their decisions one way or another.
What is even more influencing is the demeanor of the two parties when they are in the court room. Many people become their own worst enemies when they walk into a court room. One sure way to piss off a judge is to start trying to argue constitutional law and principles which have been resolved hundreds of times in the past, in a hearing. You piss a judge off, he or she is very likely to put the screws to you. If people would learn to check their feelings and emotions at the court house door, they would most likely have fewer problems.
Judges are human. They respond to things the same way others respond to them. Perhaps, in an ideal world, they shouldn't, but it is human nature. No one would want to have a robot or a computer decide their case. Everyone wants to have their own special circumstances and their "feelings" considered. Makes it damned hard to be a judge in family court.
Doc
May 21st, 2008 at 3:25 am
Doc,
You know what I heard from CP's and NCP's? They told me by way of a little birdie: "Get the gov't the hell out of marriage!" Thats what I heard and that bird is a bird from a specific species that originates in Russia and after he related the message he said off the record "I would have to concur with their opinions because my great-grandparents told me about how it wasn't the Orthodox Church or some other religious organization that intruded and thereby controlled marriage and thus our lives but it was the state that arrogated to itself the authority to intrude into the familial life, legalize divorce, annul parental rights, begin 'public' education, legalize abortion and then provided the means for the fathers to 'support' the attendant chaos that was but a logical conclusion of these inimical 'family' policies. When the system was finally 'reformed' millions were dead through various means with the state right there to provide the solution to the problem they created. It seems like the entire process is reoccurring in your county" That is what the bird said to me. Perhaps you could take up birdwatching Doc for as polities come and go as their 'laws' come and go, nature always remains the same.
May 21st, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Glenn Sacks Says: ... but I agree we could probably find a better word than "Official." Perhaps "Agent"? "Officer"?
How about privateering? Covers both the government sanction and the reluctance on the part of the customers.
May 21st, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Thanks for answering, Doc.
While you addressed the questions, I don't feel you answered them. By posting here at all, I imagine that you have a constructive purpose. But I am mystified as to what it is, unless it is merely to explain that child support collection agencies care little about the cases, only about the collections. Frankly, I think most people here don't need to know that.
By participating in any debate on child support I think you ought to have an opinion on it. I was trying to get at your view on whether the system is appropriate or not. The issues I brought up had to do with the fairness of the system, not so much the specific machinations. From seeing your responses to other people, it appears that we have a war going on about CS, and we are discussing the merits of each side, and you are engaging in a dialogue with the casualties on one side of the war, explaining that as a rifle manufacturer you have no opinions about the war. If you truly have no opinions about it, what is your purpose in coming here?
My issues can be grouped into two general categories, if you choose to address either. Group 1 -for points #2, 3, and 5, these are all reasons why the general application of the laws and the corresponding assignment of obligations are both unjust. Group 2 - points #1, 4, and 6 are reasons why the laws themselves appear unjust. Aside from exceptions, do you believe the status quo is totally fair and appropriate ? Or do you believe something can be done to make a more equitable arrangement? If so, what would it be.
Or, using the metaphor above, are you only here to tell us that if we get in the way of the rifle we are likely to get hit, regardless of our feelings?
May 21st, 2008 at 9:27 pm
There are statements in the records of the Australian Parliament that a Michael "Doc" McCoy made assertions to the Australian press that Child Support Intervention had the imprimatur of the Federal Government of Australia. The Minister for Community Services was asked about these statements, and was informed about the Bill of No Rights for non-custodial parents, which was displayed on the CSI web site. The Minister stated that "there is no truth that the Australian Givernement supports the entry of organizations such as Child Support Intervention into the Australian Market." My question is, if there was no truth to these assertions, why did you make them? I refer to page 208
of www.aph.gov.au/Hansard/reps/dailys/dr160200.pdf.
May 22nd, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Here's my comment: I'm a divorced mother and my ex pays child support. I am engaged to a man who also divorced with children, he also pays child support. Seeing it from both sides. I) I don't believe child support should be used as a source of income, but used to have that extra support when needed. 2) I believe some of the support given should be set up into a college fund for the children, cause after the child turns 19 1/2 or graduates from high school support stops and the payer does not have to support or divide any college tuition. Which many payees fail to realize. 3) I do not believe that a payer should have to pay more than 40% of their earnings, do to the fact that the payer must have enough income to support him or herself, so the child(ren) involved can go see the payer at their home with the payer being able to support the child(ren) when they come. 4) Example: My fiance made $18,000.00 last year. He is ordered to pay out $900.00. He paid out $10,800.00 in support, that left him $7,200.00 to support our family. If I didn't work and I wasn't involved here. What would he have? That is bearing enough to live on. Especially with the economy raising. Price of living doubling. To me, that is not fair! He at times may get behind. You believe there is no excuse. We also have a child together. Unexpected bills come ups. It happens. 5) Knowing this I can't attack my ex when he gets behind. Because its not about getting the money. I learned its about my children. Their time with their father is priceless. I learned to adjust to my income and not reliey on his support. My children come first and their father needs a home so they can go visit.
I do believe that the child support formula needs to be adjusted according to the times. I believe it needs to researched. They are a few women and men out their that abuse the system. Yes, their are men and women out their that won't support or help the child(ren). Not all are that way. Again, I don't believe child support should be used as an income, but go into a fund to support college tution.
Thank you
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:45 am
Heather M. Johnson Says: I) I don't believe child support should be used as a source of income, but used to have that extra support when needed.
Doc Says: Very confusing statement there. What percentage of people who receive child support do you think use it as a source of income?
HMJ Says: 2) I believe some of the support given should be set up into a college fund for the children...
Doc Says: Admirable posturing, especially given that most people these days are unable to save any money. Very few people have enough money in savings to survive for even one month if they had no income.
HMJ Says: 3) I do not believe that a payer should have to pay more than 40% of their earnings
Doc Says: I would agree with with that. Of course, there are many here that think that even 10% of their earnings for the payment of child support would be too much.
HMJ Says: 4) Example: My fiance made $18,000.00 last year. He is ordered to pay out $900.00. He paid out $10,800.00 in support, that left him $7,200.00 to support our family. If I didn't work and I wasn't involved here. What would he have? That is bearing enough to live on. Especially with the economy raising. Price of living doubling. To me, that is not fair! He at times may get behind.
Doc Says: I believe that for your statement to have any great impact, you would need to provide more details. As it stands with what you wrote, your fiance is paying 60% of his income to child support. This can mean one of two things in all probability: (A) He was making more money when the support was ordered and has not attempted to obtain a reduction - and I say that because you make no mention of attempts to do that; or (B) He has been in arrears in the past and has had extra added to the child support to catch up on the arrearage. I think that is more likely given you state that :{H}e at times may get behind." Then question then is: What is the percentage of the current support and what is the percentage being applied to arrears?
HMT Says: We also have a child together. Unexpected bills come ups. It happens.
Doc Says: If you weren't singing the songs that the people like here, you could be jumped on for having a child without being married. But, that is neither here nor there. To me, a man that can barely afford to live after paying child support for other children, really has no business fathering another child. The fact that you do have another child, we can also presume that you (A) have an excellent paying job; (B) you are using some of the child support that you receive to support the new mouth in your family; (C) you aren't putting much, if any money away for college for all of your other kids; or (D) you are living in poverty.
HMT Says: 5) Knowing this I can't attack my ex when he gets behind. Because its not about getting the money. I learned its about my children. Their time with their father is priceless. I learned to adjust to my income and not reliey on his support.
Doc: It would be nice if everyone in the world could do that. However, there are plenty of people who can't do that, and also plenty of people who receive absolutely nothing in child support or support from their ex with the kids.
HMT Says: I do believe that the child support formula needs to be adjusted according to the times.
Doc Says: I can agree with this. The only problem with the suggestion is that the "times" are continually changing. With the economy what it is today, I think that many people should be entitled to a reduction if certain key factors are involved. But, unfortunately, the system isn't set up to do that, nor could it be set up to do that.
HMT Says: Again, I don't believe child support should be used as an income, but go into a fund to support college tution.
Doc Says: Basically, if you are living what you preach, then every bit of child support you receive is being banked. Good for you. Like I said before, no everyone can do that - and since you are also partially supporting your fiance, I suspect that once again, you either have an excellent job or you are not doing what you preach.
Doc
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:19 am
Heather Johnson says: "2) I believe some of the support given should be set up into a college fund for the children, cause after the child turns 19 1/2 or graduates from high school support stops and the payer does not have to support or divide any college tuition. Which many payees fail to realize"
PK responds: I largely paid for my own college education via personal savings from working as a child and student loans because my parents didn't want to help me out since, being 2nd born son in a Christian household, I wasn't their favorite. Because of a lack of support, I ultimately dropped out and never completed my degree. I wish I had, but that's life.
Despite that, Heather, I don't think children are owed a college education by either parent. My parents, jerks they were, had a legal right to not pay for my schooling. Some students don't need (nor should) go to college. After I hit the ground and picked myself up, I went on to do pretty well for myself. It wasn't the end of the world.
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:32 am
Doc Says: I believe that for your statement to have any great impact, you would need to provide more details. As it stands with what you wrote, your fiance is paying 60% of his income to child support. This can mean one of two things in all probability: (A) He was making more money when the support was ordered and has not attempted to obtain a reduction - and I say that because you make no mention of attempts to do that; or (B) He has been in arrears in the past and has had extra added to the child support to catch up on the arrearage. I think that is more likely given you state that :{H}e at times may get behind." Then question then is: What is the percentage of the current support and what is the percentage being applied to arrears?
PK adds: There's also (C): The court refused to adjust his income downward when he lost a higher paying job and (D) The court is counting her marital income contribution in assessing how much he should pay for his "responsibility" to pay child-support.
HMT Says: We also have a child together. Unexpected bills come ups. It happens.
Doc Says: If you weren't singing the songs that the people like here, you could be jumped on for having a child without being married. But, that is neither here nor there. To me, a man that can barely afford to live after paying child support for other children, really has no business fathering another child.
PK responds: Simply amazing. So should the court have ordered her to get an abortion? Indeed, there was a recent case where a family judge ordered a man with massive child-support orders to cease from having future children or face going to jail. While I think you're being insensitive and biased, I nonetheless agree with you. I don't think ANY parent who is unable to financially support their children should go out and have them but this should apply to women as well such as those on welfare or child-support. If a woman on child-support has a child out of wedlock, the court should consider this an act of parental irresponsibility.
Doc continues: The fact that you do have another child, we can also presume that you (A) have an excellent paying job; (B) you are using some of the child support that you receive to support the new mouth in your family; (C) you aren't putting much, if any money away for college for all of your other kids; or (D) you are living in poverty.
PK: Or (D), she is resourceful. I know plenty of people in suburbia who have problems making ends meet despite excellent salaries or other forms of support. But yes, indeed, this shoes that so-called "child" support isn't what makes a woman able to support her children but rather her own hard work and resourcefulness.
May 25th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Why should a man making 75,000 per year pay an arbitrarily high amount of child support to a woman making 50,000 per year who has remarried and lives with a man making 250,000 per year?
May 26th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
When two people who have children together choose to split/divorce both people need to understand that there will be a reduction in the standard of living. This is just plain simple math. Two housholds cost more than one. Now, the mother's who expect thousands from their baby daddies are out of their minds. The mother must be expected to contribute the EXACT same amount that the father is expected to pay. So if the gold-digger is asking for $5000 per month from baby daddy, a judge must ensure that she can match that amount. If mommy dearest does not work then the judge needs to tell her to get off her duff and get a job. Until she gets a job, the kids stay with dad and she gets NOTHING. Once she has a job then assess the financial contribution of both parties. Again, every bill that the child or children incures needs to be slit 50/50 by both parents. Niether parent would get one penny more than that 50% cost. After all, why should I pay for your house when I have a house you could live in just fine. And if the kids live with me 50% of the time, you take care of your bills, I take care of mine.
Since we are experiencing bad employment times, unemployment also needs to be taken into consideration. During the unemployed time the parent would have the support amount reduced to an amount that could be paid on Unemployment. The difference would be totally written off and would NOT be made up, unless the parent wanted to. This is realistic because if you were still married you would have to figure out how to make ends meet on one income anyway.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Sierra: "When two people who have children together choose to split/divorce both people need to understand that there will be a reduction in the standard of living. "
As a result of no-fault / unilateral divorce, the description that two people choose to split/divorce is misleading.
May 30th, 2008 at 8:50 am
The sad truth is that children and fathers have been reduced to being only THE PAWN and THE PAYOR. If fathers were treated equally as parents, and were allowed to have time with their children, the child support system would be nearly obsolete. There are too many fathers trying to pay child support that is too high and too many fathers being denied access to their children, with no recourse in the system.
A father (like me) who has wasted many thousands of dollars and years of torment, trying to go through a system that is blatantly anti-male, has nothing left at the end of the ordeal. He and his family are left financially, emotionally, physically and spiritually empty. They have given all they have to try to just get time with their children, but were never even heard.
WHY should he then have to PAY the state and his ex for keeping him from the children they want him to pay for, when he is more than willing to be a parent- IF they would only allow him to? Alienating custodial parents and the corrupt system should not be rewarded for destroying fahers and children. Cooperating with their illegal and unconstitutional treatment only leads to more and bigger abuses of father and child rights. It's that simple.
May 30th, 2008 at 10:46 am
They routinely break their own codes in state Constitution and Judicial Conduct.
The Texas Constitution
Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 18 - IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT
No person shall ever be imprisoned for debt.
So why are fathers being locked up for up to 9 years for child support arrears?
The Judicial Code of Conduct is broken every time judges put fathers into "visitor" status and remove equal parenting rights, making Family Court decisions based on what is "politically correct" in the feminist arena, instead of what is truly best for the child. They're more worried about covering their own butts than doing what's legally or morally right for the child.
The Code of Judicial Conduct, in part:
A judge shall not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism. (yeah, sure!)
A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice.
A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status, and shall not knowingly permit staff, court officials and others subject to the judge's direction and control to do so.
June 11th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
What i dont understand is why they award sole custody to mothers who dont work, force the dad to pay 50% or more of his salary in an attempt to keep his ex and kids afloat, and then they wonder why the mother and children are living in poverty?
I dont have a problem with supporting my kids(i dont have kids, just using myself as an example), but when they award custody to mothers who dont work when the fathers are more than willing to take care of the kids and could give the kids a more stable life, it pisses me off.
And personally i'd pay more support for more time with my kids, but it seems that fathers are more like visitors to the kids.
My gripe isn't with child support, even though the CS system NEEDS work, my gripe is that mothers are awarded custody by default, and the only time fathers get primary custody is when the mother is a drug addict or has a mental disorder, or is in prison. At least in the thousands of cases i've reviewed as a family court lawyer.
June 12th, 2008 at 7:53 am
Sean C. says: "My gripe isn't with child support, even though the CS system NEEDS work, my gripe is that mothers are awarded custody by default, and the only time fathers get primary custody is when the mother is a drug addict or has a mental disorder, or is in prison. At least in the thousands of cases i've reviewed as a family court lawyer."
Sean, in many cases the judge doesn't give a decent father custody even when the mother is very unfit. They make excuse after excuse and give her chance upon chance. In my case my ex became a drug addict, was arrested for dealing drugs and spent time in jail, was also fined and spent a couple of days in jail for refusing to get up in the morning and get my child off to school, PLUS solid proof she abandoned and neglected my child AND constantly refused me any contact.
The judge still refused to make me the CP or even order her to allow me court-ordered visitation. I was given temporary custody when my child was abandoned, but she became CP again 6 months later when she showed up in court, even though my child was doing great with me.
It did severe damage to my child to be taken from me again, and my ex continues to move around and refuse me any contact with my child- never even allows me to have an address or phone number.
I filed several motions for contempt of visitation orders, and also tried to regain custody when she was arrested for dealing drugs. The judge actually said "Even though she was arrested and charged with drug possession with intent to deliver, it doesn't prove she was actually using the drugs herself".
The judge then suggested I (again) search and find out where my ex now lives (she had disappeared again after release from jail), ask her to file to change jurisdiction to her state and then file motions again to get visitation orders enforced in that state. They seem to think I have enfless amounts of money, energy and time to constantly search the country for her most recent flophouse. Even when I find her the courts do nothing to help me anyway. WTF?!?!
Every bit of evidence I presented to prove my child wasn't safe in her custody was brushed aside and completely ignored, while she continues to be in contempt of orders with no consequences at all. My child is suffering, I'm suffering, and all the judge ever worries about is what SHE wants.
In cases like this, where there's proof that the child support is being used for illicit activity, and the NCP is being refused any contact, child support should at least be closely monitored to assure that it's being used for the child and not for drugs and partying.
About 5 years ago, I actually believed in the stinking system in this country, and never dreamed it was so corrupt.
All I feel now is utter contempt for the entire mess it's become, and sorrow for the children it's destroying, including my own.
April 6th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
This is right here, in the present, not the future.