As so often happens, the callers were a parade of family law horrors...
April 14th, 2009 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
I did a couple radio shows this morning, The Lincoln Ware Show on AM 1230 The Buzz in Cincinnati and also an interview on 1150 AM WJBO News Radio in Baton Rouge.
As so often happens, the callers were a parade of family law horrors.
One caller, Andre, said that he has always paid his child support but his ex moved out of state and won't allow him his court-ordered visitation with his kid. It goes without saying that anybody within the family court system which is so diligent about collecting his money and sending it on to the mother is willing to do anything to help connect him with his kids.
Another gentleman complained that after his divorce he paid alimony directly to his ex-wife to help provide for her instead of waiting for the state system to handle it. Later on (guess what?), he said, "they said what I'd already paid was 'a gift' and that I still owed the same amount, which must be paid through them."
This was interesting to me because I've heard that about child support many times but never spousal support. After he hung up, I wondered if his ex had the honor to return the money he was forced to double pay. I hope she did.
I explained that the reason child support enforcement does this with child support is the federal reimbursement funds they receive for the money they collect. If dad pays mom directly, they don't get a reimbursement.
I discussed the problems with this system in my co-authored column Federal Child Support Enforcement Cuts Will Hurt Bureaucrats, not Children (Las Vegas Review-Journal, Riverside Press-Enterprise, 12/16/05).
We also discussed Fathers & Families' highly-publicized lawsuit against Massachusetts' child support guidelines and the problems faced by child support obligors during the recession.
"));
19 queries. 0.370 seconds.
April 14th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Contempt of court for visitation orders. In the 3,100 county courthouses in the U.S., has a woman served prison time for this usual and ordinary Family Court judgement? Of the millions of annual divorces that the U.S. produces, has a family court issued a contempt of court against a mom. Statistically, what does that look like? Where does one go for this information?
April 14th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
This sounds like interesting radio- Glenn you should get a regular podcast going
April 14th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Spousal Support? - Isn't that the money you pay for Biff's motorbike upgrades after your wife leaves you for Biff the Biker?
April 14th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
As so often happens, the callers were a parade of family law horrors...
Excellent... Men's lives ruined.. Just as they should be for "oppressing" women and keeping them down over the centuries through rape and domestic violence.
I love now.org
April 14th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
How many lives destroyed does it take? How often does a woman not being punished for her denial of access does it take? When will they wake and see the money is the driving force? How many women must be exposed as liars? When will we understand government workers work for themselves and not the children? It's blowing in the wind.
April 14th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Glenn States: I explained that the reason child support enforcement does this with child support is the federal reimbursement funds they receive for the money they collect. If dad pays mom directly, they don't get a reimbursement.
Once again, not a full disclosure. The reason behind the requirement for payments to be made through the child support office is so that there is a permanent record of payments made. It removes the burden that would be placed on the obligor to keep an individual record of payments. It in turn, alleviates the "he said - she said" scenario that can arise when determining whether support was, in fact, paid.
The argument about the "federal reimbursement funds" is true, to a point. Those funds are used, to fund the operations of the child support enforcement office, also known as the IV-D Agency. If the federal money isn't paid, then the bill for funding the office goes to the individual state taxpayer. Surplus money received by the agency typically goes into the state's general fund. Either way, the office is going to be funded.
Hypothetically, if the state was solely responsible for the funding of the office, the collection efforts would become more aggressive.
Every aspect of the government, at all levels, is about making money.
April 15th, 2009 at 6:50 am
Doc Says:
"The reason behind the requirement for payments to be made through the child support office is so that there is a permanent record of payments made. It removes the burden that would be placed on the obligor to keep an individual record of payments. It in turn, alleviates the 'he said - she said' scenario that can arise when determining whether support was, in fact, paid."
No, the reason behind this requirement is so that more government agencies can be created, more government workes can be hired, and more bureaucrats can sit on their fat a$$ and collect more $$$ from people who actually work for a living. Too bad it doesn't remove the burden of dealing with incompetent bureaucrats who can't keep accurate records of what has been paid and often can't even collect the money from the right person. Regardless of whether or not a parent pays "child support" directly to the other parent or through one of these agencies, he better keep a record of what he pays.
I paid mommy support... uh, I mean "child support" directly to my ex for over 10 years and I am walking proof that it is simple and easy to eliminate the need for any third party nonsense. Make payments by check and clearly write what each payment is for on the face of the check. When the other parent cashes the check, they are going on record that they agree with the terms specified on the check. This becomes a legally binding document that will hold up in court. Been there, done that.
April 15th, 2009 at 8:03 am
Dave,
I think Doc deserves credit. He said, "Every aspect of the government, at all levels, is about making money." I don't think either of us could argue about that; if we want honesty, or at least less trouble, from the government with regards to child support, then we need to remove the financial incentive.
Besides, it might actually be worth it to have the states responsible to themselves for collection, rather than the federal government. At least one less cog in the system means at least one less place for things to go wrong.
April 15th, 2009 at 9:36 am
There was a 6 month period when my daughter's mom refused to let me see her.
I was sending her checks for $250.00 a month and put for Mindy's support and needs.
Of course this shining beacon of motherhood said I had provided zero child support for our daughter. Not until I produced copies of the cancelled checks with her signature on it did she admit that I had given her any money.
What a fine role model she is for our child!
April 15th, 2009 at 10:15 am
DOC! Heya, haven't seen you here in a while! It's been boring with only Jeana and GG to kick around! (kidding.)
Doc, I've been bugging the Texas OAG for more than 2 years to get them to take *any* action against my ex for *never* paying child support. They've left me with a "keystone cops" impression about their capabilities. They still haven't been able to serve her, and she's lived at the same address for the last two years. They're unwilling to suspend a driver's license, sieze a tax return. Come on, now!
For her 3 years of total non-payment, her arrears are still less than I paid her in the span of 1 year.
I think that the vast majority of child support payments processed through the state disbursement agency have *never* required any action (beyond filling out forms and entering a few lines of data in a computer), and most of that handled by direct deposit.
Deadbeat dads, like pediophiles, rapists, wife beaters, drug dealers, "teh mob", and now "terrorists" etc. are all political bogeymen. The size and scope of "the problem" is vastly distorted when money comes into it, and few people are willing to analyze the results, since there's little benefit in it for them.
Yes, there are a few parents that are ignoring their obligation to care for their children, but to claim that 100% of child support has to run through a state accountant before it's considered 'paid' is rediculous. I don't have to pay my mortgage, car payment, utilities, day care, insurance, medical bills through a state agency, yet somehow, these entities are content that they're paid, and can manage to keep their records in order.
The bigger problem is the uphill battle to adjust an obligation to match a changing financial reality, and a court system that makes inflexible, sweeping decisions by judicial fiat. The barriers to entry (to the family court system) for people living paycheck to paycheck are nearly impossible to overcome. A court appearance is equal to or greater than a housepayment.
April 15th, 2009 at 10:41 am
Money paid to the states "for child support enforcement", should go ONLY to child support enforcement, not to pad the state coffers for other useless crap. That's the justification used to take other people's money, so repurposing it for other things that can't get enough public or legislative support on their own is considerably dishonest.
Feminists would be pissed if VAWA money went to drug enforcement, or to hike and bike trails, or disabled access to public golf courses, etc. The same should be said about federal OCSE disbursements for state child support enforcement.
April 15th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
@ Offended Dad: Both males and females have similar complaints about the ineptitude of the Attorney General's Offices around the country. I presume that the criteria of going after someone has not changed since I was involved. They will invest money in the cases that show the promise of getting returns. In short, it is a waste of money to sue someone for money if the chance of getting money as a result of the action is low. That is the way that business is done at all levels and in all industries.
Your argument about not having to run money through a special agency for things like mortgages, car payments, etc. is weak. In those cases you are dealing with a reputable business that has a reputation to uphold or try to uphold. No one here will claim that their ex is reputable. David M's posting is an example.
A few years ago, the laws and court determinations were that any payments made directly to the ex when there was a court order requiring the payments to be made through the child support agency were to be considered to be gifts. The reason was simple: The parties were not following the court order. Things have changed since then, thankfully. Now it is possible to get credit for payments made directly when there is proof.
Re: Money paid to the states going to other government programs: I agree with you 100%. I don't know what each state's profits are anymore, but they used to be sizable for some states. However, those profits could have easily helped keep State taxes a bit lower. It is all a double edged sword. It would be nice if everything in the world was a simple black and white. No one is ever going to see that day.
Doc
April 15th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
A question occurs to me (although, perhaps, a bit off-topic):
In a hypothetical situation in which a woman who has sole custody, and the child support-paying father is essentially removed from the picture (perhaps living in a distant state); and the mother does something that leads social services to step in an take that child from her; does the "system" automatically suspend the fathers financial obligations to the mother?
Would they even bother to notify him of what was going on?
Or, would they, as I suspect, simply continue to collect money from him to pass on to the mother, while keeping him in the dark?
April 15th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
This sounds like interesting radio- Glenn you should get a regular podcast going.
I agree. Even if there is no new material and its just a weekly summary of his shows, meetings, and coverage of any events he attended during the week I think it would be a good idea.
April 15th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
From what i see child support keeps sending money to mom no matter what our daughter was out of school 1 year she never notified us and kept colecting. When x moved to canada she left son here but kept collecting even after he was emancipated. I guess its up to the payer to keep track,even though child support is sappose to. Dor/cse wouldnt even give us x s address tell we got a court order.
April 15th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Fairly obvious that the only solution is to shut down the Child Support System, not negotiate with it.
April 15th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Doc Says:
"The reason behind the requirement for payments to be made through the child support office is so that there is a permanent record of payments made. It removes the burden that would be placed on the obligor to keep an individual record of payments."
barbara Says:
"From what i see child support keeps sending money to mom no matter what our daughter was out of school 1 year she never notified us and kept colecting. When x moved to canada she left son here but kept collecting even after he was emancipated. I guess its up to the payer to keep track,even though child support is sappose to."
Hmmm... I wonder what happened to that "permanent record of payments"???
Gee, do you think that an "obligor" shouldn't keep an individual record of payments?
Did I mention that I have some swampland... uh, I mean waterfront property for sale?