NPR Does Piece on Fathers & Families Member, Problems Faced by Laid off Divorced Dads
May 11th, 2009 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
"When judges don’t give relief to non-custodial parents who are unemployed, it puts fathers in legal jeopardy, says Ned Holstein.
"'Everybody is struggling, but someone who has a child-support order is going to be put in jail because they can’t pay their debts,' he says. 'We’re talking about ways to work out their mortgage and credit card debt, but non-custodial parents are the only ones whose debts will put them in jail.'”
NPR station WBUR in Boston did a nice piece this week on the problems faced by noncustodial fathers who lose their jobs in the recession but cannot get courts to modify their child support downward. Fathers & Families' member Jim Feeney and Fathers & Families founder Ned Holstein, M.D., M.S. are quoted and featured.
In Out Of Work, Parents Struggle To Keep Up On Child Support, NPR reporter Monica Brady-Myerov writes:
[A]sking the court to change the child support obligation because you lost your job isn’t always enough. Longtime family law attorney B.J. Krintzman of Newton says it’s a slow moving system that hasn’t changed with the fast decline in the economy.
“There’s a disinclination by the courts to give an instantaneous reduction in child support,” Krintzman said. “Because, for instance, of a job loss — because you don’t know if the person is going to be reemployed within a few weeks or something.”
But with a state unemployment rate of 7.8 percent, other lawyers say more judges are granting temporary relief immediately, because they know it’s unlikely someone will get a new job quickly. Another complication is that some custodial parents who’ve lost their jobs are also asking the courts to increase the amount they receive...
Typically, it takes six months from the time a non-custodial parent petitions the court to pay less because of a job loss to when the court makes a decision.
“And during those couple of months you can be going broke in a hurry,” says Ned Holstein, president of Fathers and Families, a group that represents the majority of non-custodial parents: dads.
“Then when you get the hearing, typically the family court judges will not give you relief in the first hearing,” Holstein said. “They say, ‘Well, how do we know this is not going to be long standing? You could get a job next week. You have assets you can pay it out of your assets. And so I’ll see you again in three more months.’”
And that’s exactly what happened to Jim Feeney, who lives on Cape Cod. He’s a father of four who was married 19 years and has been has been divorced for five. He’s required to pay $800 a week in child support and 65 percent of college expenses for two of his children. In January he lost his $83,000-a-year job in business development.
“First I filed for unemployment,” Feeney recalled. “I filed for a complaint for modification from the court. And I filed for transitional assistance, welfare and food stamps. Because I had no income, I had no savings.”
Feeney had to wait two and a half months for a hearing. Then the judge denied his request to temporarily lower his child support payments and scheduled a trial for July. After the hearing, Feeney spoke about his case at a restaurant across the street from the Bristol County Probate Courthouse in New Bedford.
“They charge penalties, interest — there are penalties to the state. There’s penalties that go to my ex-wife. There’s interest that goes to the state, there’s interest that goes to my ex-wife”...
When judges don’t give relief to non-custodial parents who are unemployed, it puts fathers in legal jeopardy, says Ned Holstein.
“Everybody is struggling, but someone who has a child-support order is going to be put in jail because they can’t pay their debts,” he says. “We’re talking about ways to work out their mortgage and credit card debt, but non-custodial parents are the only ones whose debts will put them in jail.”
This is the second excellent piece Monica Brady-Myerov has done on fathers' issues in recent months---please send her a complimentary email by clicking here.
Monica Brady-Myerov's previous piece was Lawsuit Says Child Support Guidelines 'Unfair' (WBUR, 3/16/09) and featured Holstein and two Fathers & Families members, Andrew Pelser and Simon Peffers.
"));
19 queries. 0.369 seconds.
May 11th, 2009 at 10:38 am
Again, and again, and again, we see the same pattern that can only be called morally grotesque.
If the family is intact when Dad loses his job, the family unit pulls togethers, tightens their belts and sacrifices.
But when the family is not intact, when Dad is ousted from the family due to divorce, if Dad loses his job there is no sense of pulling together as a family, or tightening belts as a family, or sacrificing as a family. Amber shouldn't be forced to give up karate lessons; Jasper shouldn't be forced to give up hockey. Life needs to continue as usual -- tough for Dad that he's lost his livelihood, but it's not our problem.
It's pay Mom, or Dad goes to jail.
Perhaps Dad will even get a taste of jailhouse "justice" if he's sufficiently vulnerable -- and attractive to the rapists who are permitted to have their way with young men without repercussions.
The inhumanity of this pattern is unspeakable. That persons of goodwill tolerate it is unfathomable. That news outlets are only now finding out about it is both mildly encouraging and seriously disheartening at the same time.
May 11th, 2009 at 10:45 am
But when the family is not intact, when Dad is ousted from the family due to divorce, if Dad loses his job there is no sense of pulling together as a family, or tightening belts as a family, or sacrificing as a family. Amber shouldn't be forced to give up karate lessons; Jasper shouldn't be forced to give up hockey. Life needs to continue as usual -- tough for Dad that he's lost his livelihood, but it's not our problem.
Actually, in a cruel sense of irony, the family DOES tighten their belts, because Dad is now in jail and ALL income from CS ceases. while jailed, he now has an improbable, if not impossible, task of finding employment, so when/if he DOES get out of jail, he can start paying CS - oh, and the penalties and interest that have now racked-up and take an even BIGGER portion of his paycheck. He realizes he can't keep up, so he falls behind again, and the cycle is repeated.
May 11th, 2009 at 11:03 am
Where is the Justice that needs to be administered to the judges? It nice that they will report on our moaning, but not report on the corruption of the judiciary. It's not enough to just hear our pain; it's expose our tormentors. What should be chiseled in the courthouse doors can be taken from Dante's Inferno's Hell entrance; "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.'"
May 11th, 2009 at 11:03 am
It's an experience I'm going through right now. And while I'm not nearly in as dire a situation as some, that's the direction I am heading, along with my family.
May 11th, 2009 at 11:14 am
$800 a week for 2 kids plus college expenses.
Hes a slave - no other way to state it.
Its immoral alright.
Given that hes not getting a tax break he was making 83k and living on under 2k a month and having to pay college expenses from that.
Where is moms financial responsibility?
May 11th, 2009 at 11:14 am
This problem of debtors prisons and child extortion didnt just start with any economic crisis, its been going on for decades. Only now in a manufactured financial meltdown does anyone care enough to look at the problem.
The whole concept of child extortion is so ugly, that now with a crumbling society (I wonder why?), an excuse exists to pretend it was never a problem before now.
Historically debtors prisons belonged to the Euro(censored). These prisons were one of the major contributing factors of the Revolutionary War and years of Euro immigration to America as people were being thrown in prison for manufactured debts.
This is a good sign that there is some acknowledgment to the travesty, as those responsible are already trying to shore up a moral defense for the decades of debtors prisons we have had to endure by claiming it only recently became a problem. Ha
The only responsibility I have to my children is to love them and be with them.
May 11th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Jesus Christ! The guy has to pay $800 per WEEK plus half of college expenses for 2 kids out of $83k. How do you do that?
$83k
- $20k for taxes (remember: you pay taxes on the full amount you make, including CS)
- $41k for CS ($800 * 52 weeks)
- $20k (half of college expenses for 2 kids can't be less than $20k, can it?)
------
$2k per year
So he has a grand total of $2,000 PER YEAR to feed and house himself!!!??? That's $166 per month!!
Slavery is alive and well in America!
May 11th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Less government means more freedom. America's citizens are a highly educated and literate people; let the people work it out themselves, for good or bad. People do not change, government is the problem. Disassemble family (read: divorce) court and start enforcing marriage.
May 11th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
And no mention of how this affects any "second" children he has with his new spouse. The first kids are entitled to the same of income whether he has a job or not, while the second kids could starve. If this doesn't expose the hypocrisy of "it's for the children" then nothing will.
May 11th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
If I have the story right about Jim, the judge in New Bedford Fernandes denied his sons request to live with him also and they are in their mid to late teens.
May 11th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Dead Beat Dads are strictly amateurs. To really register on the Bad-Guy Scale, you have to be like this guy:
http://www.news4jax.com/news/19410437/detail.html#-
Now that he is caught, the citizens of Jascksonville can finally rest easy. They are safe and sound in their homes thanks to the tireless efforts of the Jacksonville Police Department. They must surely have renewed their faith in the legal and justice system after this major victory against crime.
May 11th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
I still don't understand the reasoning behind mandating college expenses in the divorce agreement. Children of unmarried or married parents don't have a guarantee of that payment, they have to either convince their parents that it's a worthwhile investment or go it alone.
What happens when the kid fails their freshman semester? It's not like Dad can stop paying until the kid gets their act together.
May 11th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Being ordered to pay for your child's college education been abolished in all but a minority of states. Those that still have laws on the books that may include parents paying for college tuition do so to keep the child support gravy-train going because, along with college, comes extended "child support" payments. Some lasting as long as the "child's" age of 23.
In many states, the law requiring non-custodial parents to pay any of a child's college educational expenses was struck down as unconstitutional because the law didn't apply to married parents... only separated, divorced, and unmarried parents.
May 11th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
There ought to be a national stop payment campaign. No more payments until the laws change. There is debtor’s prison for men down on their luck, yet no prison for the rest of the country not paying their bills. Hypocrites.
Where is the equality when only men are thrown in jail for not paying bills? And in some cases without bail. Where is bailout money for the poor, unlucky guy? The United States is cruel bully.
I expect that NOW, media, and the government will not be pleased. Let them start throwing men in jail - we do not have jobs anyway.
May 11th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Considering that college is optional under the law, why should a parent be obligated to pay for it? Also, if you require people to pay a percentage of the cost, and the university tuition is $35,000 (not including housing, meal plan, course books, and course fees which add another $15,000) and increasing by 6-8% per year, then most non-custodial parents are going to be sleeping on the sidewalk in weeks. I thought CS was intended to cover the needs of children - even if it fails to do anything of the sort in practice.
May 11th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
I read the article David provided the link for. $188K over 5 years, that's more than a lot of people make working full time! And to think, he came back stateside for a wedding. I would have sent a nice card along with a really nice gift and said "sorry I can't be there in person but I will be thinking of you on your day, have a nice life."
Thomas (#7) is right, no way you can live on what he had left. Personally, I thought the $800 per week was a typo, surely no one pays that much in CS! But I guess Feeney was ordered to. And here I thought Daddy paid way too much in CS for my sister. Compared to Feeney, Daddy got off cheap!
May 11th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Excellent point, Madmax!! “Considering that college is optional under the law, why should a parent be obligated to pay for it?” When my daughter was a senior in HS I found out her father had no intention of helping pay her expenses in college. Her going to college was something we agreed on when she was still a baby, come hell or high water she would go! It never crossed my mind that he would go back on his word so I didn’t include this in our filing way back when. So, when the time was getting close and I found out he was backing out I talked to my lawyer and found out that he would have to agree to the terms, the court would not tell him he had to continue CS through college. Even if I had done it way back when, he still would have to have agreed to it. As it turns out, my daughter decided to live with her BF, one condition that she was told by both her parents would cause her to have to pay for school on her own, so I am not footing the bill, either. But the fact is, Feeney would have to have agreed in order for him to be paying it now. He probably never thought he would be unemployed and wanted to make sure his kids went to school.
May 11th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
You don't always have to agree to it. In the majority of states college expenses must be agreed to in order for complusion, but not always. In some states, like NY, everyone must pay for college that isn't married because "child" support is compelled until age 21.
May 12th, 2009 at 3:35 am
Jean,
"He probably never thought he would be unemployed and wanted to make sure his kids went to school."
Couldn't he have done that outside the CS system?
As for you ex, its unfortunate that he does not see the value in education and/ or did not want to live up to his word.
May 12th, 2009 at 9:07 am
Many would suggest that sending messages to NPR suggsting that they stop their misandry will do no good (I do it anyway and i suggest tht if more of us did it, it would carry more weight).
The following is what I sent to NPR today (I was a loyal NPR listener for two decades, so i expect more from them than mere spreading and producing misandry).
On many occasions I have suggested that congress reduce or eliminate the funding for NPR because NPR is a major producer and spreader of misandry.
For the first time in a long time NPR has actually produced a program that details the plight of men without blaming men and actually shows empathy for the plight of men as a class of persons along gender lines.
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3700
NPR Does Piece on Fathers & Families Member, Problems Faced by Laid off Divorced Dads
In most cases NPR ONLY recognizes a single gender (women) and ignores the plight of men or blames men for their plight.
The following are the man gaps (let us assume-perhaps wrongly-that anyone takes the plight of men seriously at NPR). All I hear about at NPR is stories about noble women and bad men (much like the rest of the media).
Mortality Gap - shorter lives for men
Criminal Justice System Gap-More men in prison, jail, probation & parole and for longer.
The US makes up 5% of world population and 25% of all prisoners and most are men. The only time NPR seems to get excited about this is when a few extra women make it to jail. (There never seems to be programs detailing the gender nature of our prison population). NPR only seems to care about a single gender, women, but they are willing to blame the other gender for nearly anything and everything.
Educational Outcomes Gap - boys drop out of school in higher rates, girls get more advanced degrees than boys.
Child Custody Gap - women get custody of kids 83% of the time, neither fair nor equal
Suicide Gap - men commit suicide more
Occupational Death Gap - 92.3% of all workplace deaths are men
Homeless Gap - Most homeless people are men.
blame the victim
blame the victim
blame the victim when the victim is male
women make choices, too
when will the feminists and egalitarians blame women for their choices as they do for men?
If we exonerate women for all their choices, and hold men accountable for their choices, we have hardly treated them equally or fairly
May 12th, 2009 at 9:36 am
I just called my congressperson (who happens to be on the APPROPRIATIONS Committee) to suggest that congress reduce or eliminate the funding for NPR due to its misandric content.
If NPR can see its way to finding empathy for men as well as blame for men, then they should be funded in the future, but if NPR cannot find a gender neutral ground to stand on, then let em fall on their face.
Our taxes pay for this misandry. We must rise up and be heard.
No more of our tax dollars should be used to fund misandry.
No more of our tax dollars should be used to fund gender unfair laws and practices.
Domestic violence shelters must be gender neutral or lose ALL funding from our taxes.
We must not fund our own demise! Speak up! Tell your congressperson you are tired of UNCONSTITUTIONAL women only programs that exclude men.
May 12th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
All this chit chat accomplishes is nothing.
Until each concerned person marches on Washington DC or your state capitol, the politicians won't listen to us.
I highly doubt the politicians have GlennSacks.com on their "to do" list.
(That is no dis toward Glenn's site - I advertise on it myself - it is just an honest observation on how the politicians and judges are going about their daily business)
The squeaky wheel really does get the grease.
We are not squeaky enough so we get no grease.
Yet the tree huggers, the pro choice or pro life, the LGBT groups, the ACLU, and any lobbyists with deep pockets, etc... get greased all the time.
I have been to Washington, DC, met with staff of my congressmen, the staff said those who scream the loudest get their attention.
Chat rooms aren't cutting it and are not changing things for the better.
It takes good old hard work and involvement and shoe leather to make a change.
We have so many tools to our advantage than those who fought for freedoms, civil rights, and yet we have done less. We have become complacent and failed to apply fundamentals in making our voice heard.
www.WhyJudgeLittle.com
May 12th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
#19, Madmax asked me: “Couldn't he have done that outside the CS system?”
Yes, he could have. My point was that his ex probably put it in their filing to make sure he did it and at the time he didn’t see as a big deal since he planned to do it anyway, but now that decision is biting him in the derriere, hard!
May 12th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
JeanB,
I would have to disagree, he probably didn't have an agreement but an order from Judge Fernandes. In my order (not an agreement) it is stated that we will pay if we can financially afford it. EXTORTION, but it is going to change call 617-SAD-DADS
May 12th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Wayne,
Not all states require it. Texas doesn’t. If it is not agreed to and put in writing it doesn’t happen. Paying for anything for your kids past the age of 18/HS graduation is considered a bonus to them. No parent is required to pay for anything past that time. I know some states do extend CS past that, such as NY. I believe someone said the age there is 21. Here is a question for New Yorkers, what if the kid doesn’t go to college? Are you still bound to paying CS until they are 21?
May 12th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Massachusetts is 23 years(along with Hawaii) of age if the child goes to college. Social Security stops paying at 18 if one parent dies I believe, so why does an non custodial parent have to pay after 18 if the child goes to college? MONEY - Title IVD Federal money to the state that is why. SCAM
May 12th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
In Canada it is even worse, it is written into the federal guidelines that the non-custodial parent and custodial parent will contrubute, in proportion to incomes, to post secondary education, all the way up to age 26! If the custodial parent doesn't work, or works very little, the non-custodial parent is on the hook for the majority of the educational costs. In addition to that, even if the child (errr - adult) lives AWAY from the custodial parent, on campus or elsewhere, judges in this country require the NCP to pay Child Support to the custodial parent because - get this - the custodial parent still has to maintain a home for the adult child when he/she comes home to visit.
Does the ironey of this not register on judges and lawmakers??!! The NCP has maintained a home, for up to 18+ years for their children, in the EXACT same way the custodial parent does now, for when the child visits on weekends and holidays - without even a dime of this expense acknowledged over the years. The diaparity in the way the CP and NCP are treated, in the EXACT SAME circumstances, would be laughable if it didn't mean possible (probable) financial ruin for many NCP's.
May 12th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
I have another question that I really need an answer to and I hope someone can help me. My BF is a TX resident, has been all along. Ex file in Ohio, her home state and where she moved back to when they separated. Ohio maintains all things concerning the kids. Well, “kid”, the other two are now “off the books”. Last year the ex moved to yet another state, Maine to be exact. I was reading on the Ohio AG website that if no party from the original filing currently lives in that state the CS/custody can be moved to another state, either the state of the custodial parent OR the non-custodial parent. I am paraphrasing, but that is what it said. My question is this, does anyone know if Maine is a whole lot worse than TX or would he be better off just leaving everything in Ohio? I don’t think she has thought to move things to Maine and if it would help him at all to move things to TX, they why not?!
Thanks for the help.
May 12th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
I had this situation last year but with a twist. I got lucky ( if you want to call this lucky ) that in my previous job I had over paid ( due the DHS and x wife scamming ). When I eventually got my "day in court" and when all the "hearings" where said and done I did not owe anything . In fact I was given a credit and the Judge was should I dare say it “fair” ( Don’t get me wrong I don’t think this thing is anyway near fair ).
What I'm going to suggest is not the solution to the problem but a way around the problem ( assuming you can afford to ). What I "figured" out was that the only way to stay on the "right" side of the “law” was to calculate how much child Support would be needed if I was out of work for let’s say a year. To keep it simple let’s say $10K. My priority has been since the last time I was in court to put this $10K "away".
Everything else become secondary apart from the up keep of my car which gets me to work. So I years worth of child support set aside. Once that was taken care of I continued with everything else which in turn meant downsizing everything from the house, car, cable, no credit etc.
My daughter made a comment the other week and said “daddy if I won the lotto I would buy you a house so you wouldn’t have to live in this apartment”.
I know not everyone can do this but until the so called “law” changes it’s the safest bet.
May 13th, 2009 at 11:59 pm
2ndwife too: You have it right. There is no incentive for a custodial parent rather the parent that provides primary care (as they are the ones that reap the benefits from the other parent) to work. The rewards are as good or better than winning cash for life lottery.
In my case I have primary care and chose not to seek CS from my ex wife even though she makes more money! Why, because I don't need to and neither does a woman in most cases. I work when my children are asleep or in school. It's not always the most convenient, but being a parent is not about convenience. It is about doing what is TRULY in the better interest of the children which means lots of compromise. How putting fathers in jail is in the better interest of the child is beyond me???
My wife threatened to put me in jail FOR NO REASON AT ALL!!! Except to be vindictive! She told me she was enjoying the grief it was causing me. My response was, "If you want to put me in jail, just do it! Don't threaten me with it! And then explain to the children why their father is behind bars!" So she never went through with it.
In Canada according to the Support Guidelines a man/woman must make $70,000.00 or more per year to avoid becoming impoverished and maintain a normal lifestyle while the recipient becomes UNLAWFULLY enriched! We are anxiously awaiting the outcome of a Court Action where author Lucien Khodier has brought forward a constitutional challenge that the current guidelines are unconstitutional!
Here again is a report that was prepared by www.CanadaCourtWatch.com which sheds some better light on how wrong, unjust and unlawful the Canadian Support Guidelines are, Link to report in pdf format only .
In addition to that we have found that court transcript doctoring is rampant in almost all Courthouses making fair hearings and appeal difficult if not impossible. Where Judges have made mistakes they just simply alter transcripts and lose the official court recordings as prepared by the court reporter. Not a day went by after I sent a letter to the Ontario Attorney General bringing this serious concern forward, received yet another complaint by a citizen that had Court transcripts altered by the Court which is illegal! I called the London, Ontario Court Services Managers office that NO clue about procedures about the rights of citizens to record their own court proceedings. Very scary for a country that professes just democracy!
2ndwife too. We are having problems on our server due to a major virus that has spread across the industry affecting the movie and travel industry amongst others and therefore have not been able to respond to you. I hope the problem will be fixed by tomorrow. I always knew that sooner or later vindictive women will be affecting other women as is the case with 2ndwife too. The whole family situation is a complete mess and needs to be fixed really badly so that we can provide some amount of normality and peaceful upbringing for our children to enjoy.
Attila
May 14th, 2009 at 12:02 am
Here is the link to the Support Guidelines report that did not transfer properly in my previous post.
http://www.canadacourtwatch.com/Studies/2009April12-ReportOnTheEffects.pdf
Attila
August 14th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
"'Everybody is struggling, but someone who has a child-support order is going to be put in jail because they can’t pay their debts,' he says. 'We’re talking about ways to work out their mortgage and credit card debt, but non-custodial parents are the only ones whose debts will put them in jail.'”
Debtor's prison is unconstitutional and therefore it is illegal for a judge to put anyone in jail for non-payment of child support. However, the evil criminals that rule our country don't care about the law so they do whatever they choose--the Constitution be damned.
Because of onerous and totally unreasonable child support orders, I believe every young man should have an alternate identity complete with government issued birth certificate and SSN. Then, if justified, they can disappear and perhaps take their children and disappear into their new identity. Certainly, that is their right, regardless of what laws and courts say.
Twenty years ago, that was not to difficult; however, now it is extremely difficult to obtain a new government issued birth certificates and/or SSN. It would help if parents would obtain for their young sons an alternate birth certificate and SSN. It need not be the same birth date; that alternate could be 9 months later. In any event, even that is very difficult. Because I believe it is young man's right and even his duty to obtain an alternate identity.
Therefore, on my website http://www.new-identification.com/ I am providing some suggestions how this may be accomplished with and without government issued identification.