# A question about child support and the Eighth Amendment. **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 7, 2007, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-child-support-and-the-eighth-amendment/425584 "2007-11-07T20:46:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2007, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-child-support-and-the-eighth-amendment/425584/41 "2007-11-09T11:26:53Z")
[QUOTE=Rubystreak] You can raise the issue with a judge, but that doesn’t mean you’re going to get your amount lowered. You have to prove that you are not willfully under or unemployed, and you have to show lowered income over a period of time. [/quote] Well, gee, let’s look at this statement for a moment… I am currently being laid off from my current employer. In connection with this, I am having to fill out paperwork and sign legal documents. If I was in a position of having to pay child support I would think one of the FIRST things I would do is make copies of this documentation and send it to the relevant judge as proof I am about to experience some unemployment. Is it really THAT difficult to make a few copies, put them in an envelope, slap on a stamp, and send it in? _Before_ you start falling behind? This whine about “the system is cruel to non-custodial parents” ignores the fact that _thousands_ of such parents manage to handle child support payments without being hauled in front of a judge or threatened with jail time despite the usual ups and downs of life. > [@](#): > > And then, you don’t have a lawyer because you can’t afford it. There are organizations that do work for such parents either on a sliding fee scale or _pro bono_ for extreme cases. > [@](#): > > If your ex does, your payments are less likely to get lowered. And there are many situations where the non-custodial parent has a good lawyer and the custodial parent doesn’t because not everyone is getting fat and rich off child support - I mean, some people actually _spend the money on the kids_ :eek: > [@](#): > > And you have to travel to the county where your kid lives, to show up in court. It is YOUR choice to live far away from your child. Unless you’re something like an oil field worker, but from what I hear they bring in enough to pay child support. > [@](#): > > So there are reasons why a person might have trouble getting to court to change an order. Which is also why courts have postal addresses. If you’re smart, you can _write_ to the court _before_ you’re facing jail time which will go a LONG way to having the judge regard you with some mercy. If you blow off the court and say jack, yeah, the judge will be pissed. > [@](#): > > Having a cooperative co-parent very likely makes a huge difference in how it goes. Absolutely. I’ve even know a couple situations where the parents agreed on child support _without_ involving a court, as a private arrangement. Of course, that requires two mature and responsible adults, which seem to be in short supply. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2007, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-child-support-and-the-eighth-amendment/425584/42 "2007-11-09T11:32:24Z")
[QUOTE=Lightnin’] Wrong. It’s a tactic designed to make the other side look bad if they disagree. Children aren’t the only factor in child support. If they were, divorce would be illegal except in very few situations. [/QUOTE] I don’t quite understand this claim. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2007, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-child-support-and-the-eighth-amendment/425584/43 "2007-11-09T12:18:42Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] I don’t quite understand this claim. [/QUOTE] What’s not to understand? **Rubystreak** said, “Won’t someone please think about the children?” I said that’s not an argument, it’s an emotional appeal. I must admit the wording bothered me more than anything, as it’s exactly the line that drives a lot of zero-tolerance policies. Politicians can’t argue against it, not if they want to run for office again. **Telemark** said, “We’re talking about child support. It is the argument.” I replied, saying that children aren’t the only factor in a divorce- if the best interests of the child were the entirety of the concerns of the court, then there would be far fewer divorces granted, since children benefit best from having two parents. Now, one could argue that children need a _stable_ home, and that means two parents who are committed to maintaining a stable relationship, and this is valid. However, why wouldn’t then the courts enforce marriage counseling in all divorce cases where children are involved? Why is custody so often granted to the woman, even in cases where she’s clearly the lesser parent? Why isn’t visitation enforced as vigorously as child support? My point is that while children are certainly the main focus of divorce and child support, they certainly aren’t the _only_ factor involved. No offense, **Bricker** , but I kind of get the feeling you’re fishing for an argument. I’m not going to play; I know that where the law’s concerned, you’re a hell of a lot more knowledgeable than I am. I think my point still stands, however. ---
**Author:** ![NinetyWt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/cc9497/32.png) [@NinetyWt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NinetyWt)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2007, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-child-support-and-the-eighth-amendment/425584/44 "2007-11-09T13:32:49Z")
[QUOTE=Lightnin’] **Rubystreak** said, “Won’t someone please think about the children?” [/QUOTE] Wait, I believe that was **Annie-Xmas**. (It’s been confusing keeping up, yes) ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2007, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-child-support-and-the-eighth-amendment/425584/45 "2007-11-09T14:18:10Z")
[QUOTE=Otto] > [@Rubystreak](#): > > If you want the man to have money, to pay for his kid, force him to get job counseling or use placement services (already in place for the unemployed). Suspending his driver’s license and giving him a criminal record are not going to make him more likely to pay off that money. But let’s say that instead of ordering the deadbeat parent jailed for contempt he instead orders the DP to go to job counseling, register with placement agencies and temp agencies and the like, and the DP doesn’t. What do you suggest the judge do then? [/QUOTE] **Rubystreak** , I’d be interested in your answer to **Otto’s** question. What do you suggest the court can do if it orders the counselling and so on that you suggest, and the person wilfully refuses to do it? (Key word is wilfully.) You want him to be “forced” to do it, but not jailed. What can the court do to force a wilful refuser to do something that does not involve jail? I’m genuinely curious to hear how you think the courts should respond to this situation. ---
**Author:** ![Balthisar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/balthisar/32/2825_2.png) [@Balthisar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balthisar)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2007, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-child-support-and-the-eighth-amendment/425584/46 "2007-11-09T16:04:44Z")
[QUOTE=Broomstick] It is YOUR choice to live far away from your child. Unless you’re something like an oil field worker, but from what I hear they bring in enough to pay child support. [/QUOTE] Not in cases where the custodial parent moves to another jurisdiction. Well, literally, it is your choice because you could follow them there, but c’mon, that’s not a reasonable accommodation, is it? ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2007, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-child-support-and-the-eighth-amendment/425584/47 "2007-11-09T16:11:01Z")
[QUOTE=NinetyWt] Wait, I believe that was **Annie-Xmas**. (It’s been confusing keeping up, yes) [/QUOTE] Gah, you’re right. My apologies, **Rubystreak**. ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2007, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-child-support-and-the-eighth-amendment/425584/48 "2007-11-09T16:13:59Z")
[QUOTE=Balthisar] Not in cases where the custodial parent moves to another jurisdiction. Well, literally, it is your choice because you could follow them there, but c’mon, that’s not a reasonable accommodation, is it? [/QUOTE] Many (most?) divorce agreements these days stipulate a maximum mileage that each parent is allowed without the other’s consent. In my two best friends’ divorces, it’s 50 miles. Even in Chicago area traffic, that’s about an hour and a half drive during rush hour. My dad, back in the '80s, moved across country, and I spent 6 weeks with him during the summer and a week at Christmas. Not ideal, but for non-joint custody, not bad, either. And he, I hasten to add, always paid his support on time without any problems at all. Thank the gods my parents were reasonable adults and good parents, if not good marriage mates. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2007, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-child-support-and-the-eighth-amendment/425584/49 "2007-11-10T03:25:28Z")
[QUOTE=Balthisar] Not in cases where the custodial parent moves to another jurisdiction. Well, literally, it is your choice because you could follow them there, but c’mon, that’s not a reasonable accommodation, is it? [/QUOTE] Maybe it is. I mean, my parents were married, and my mom wound up following my dad around the country because he took jobs in different areas - you think that wasn’t inconvenient, moving every 10-12 months with 4 young children in tow? Well, they were married, sometimes it’s inconvenient. You have kids - whether you’re married or not - sometimes THAT’s inconvenient. Kids are a _lifetime_ commitment whether you are married or not. Don’t want that? Don’t have kids. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2007, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-child-support-and-the-eighth-amendment/425584/50 "2007-11-10T04:41:34Z")
**Broomstick** , I didn’t think you could just put papers in the mail and get your payments lowered. The person I know who’s been through this had a court date. He showed up with documentation of his new income, which was lowered because of a lay off-- he took a lower paying job rather than go on unemployment. He thought he was doing the right thing. He had no lawyer, and his ex did. The judge disregarded his paperwork, wouldn’t lower the payments, said he was willfully underemployed. So, I’d like a cite that it can be lowered just by putting a letter in the mail. Also note, he’s been at the lowered income for 3+ years now, and the payments haven’t been lowered and won’t be. He filed for bankruptcy too, btw, after his support didn’t get lowered. Didn’t affect a thing. As it wouldn’t, of course. And some of you would say, it shouldn’t. But for every woman getting screwed by her deadbeat ex, some guy is getting screwed by his golddigging ex. Not fodder for GQ, though. Also, I really can’t believe you think a man should follow his kid’s parent around the country if she wants to move. Also, people have valid reasons for relocating like… getting a higher paying job, which helps their kids, right? Not everyone has a court-ordered custody situation, because if you’re not married to your kid’s mother, you won’t get one in the divorce proceedings. So, she could move and then what? Quit your job and move to a town where you know no one? Could wind up with a crappier job, and your support payments not getting lowered because you CHOSE to take a lower paying job. It just seems so glib to me, to say that. As is “Don’t want that-- don’t have kids.” Huh. [QUOTE=Northern Piper] **Rubystreak** , I’d be interested in your answer to **Otto’s** question. What do you suggest the court can do if it orders the counselling and so on that you suggest, and the person wilfully refuses to do it? (Key word is wilfully.) [/quote] I already answered it. > [@](#): > > You want him to be “forced” to do it, but not jailed. What can the court do to force a wilful refuser to do something that does not involve jail? I don’t know if you’d have to “force” someone who was in a bad financial situation to get job help. And like I said in my earlier response, there’s willful disregard and there’s slowly sliding into financial disaster. You’d think judges would be able to tell the difference. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2007, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-child-support-and-the-eighth-amendment/425584/51 "2007-11-10T05:02:17Z")
[QUOTE=Broomstick] \IThis whine about “the system is cruel to non-custodial parents” ignores the fact that _thousands_ of such parents manage to handle child support payments without being hauled in front of a judge or threatened with jail time despite the usual ups and downs of life. [/QUOTE] And I just took time out of my evening to prove that you are [wrong.](https://newyorkchildsupport.com/non_custodial_parent_info.html#12) You DO have to be “hauled in front of a judge” to get your payments lowered. > [@New York Child Support Website](#): > > After the petition for modification is filed, a hearing date will be set. At the hearing you will have to present information, including documents about your change in income or other changes, to the judge or hearing examiner. You can file a petition by mail, but you also have to go to court. If it’s anything like regular court, your ass is going to be sitting there all day, waiting. Good thing you’re unemployed and don’t have to worry about taking time off from work! ---
**Author:** ![SomeUserName](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e480ec/32.png) [@SomeUserName](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SomeUserName)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2007, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-child-support-and-the-eighth-amendment/425584/52 "2007-11-10T11:28:10Z")
[QUOTE=Rubystreak] And I just took time out of my evening to prove that you are [wrong.](https://newyorkchildsupport.com/non_custodial_parent_info.html#12) You DO have to be “hauled in front of a judge” to get your payments lowered. [/quote] Maybe I missed it if you are only speaking of New York, but that is not the case in all states. I recently had an assesment done, after almost twelve years, and in Ohio you do not have to go to court. You file for an assesment. The CSEA sends both parents a packet to be filled out along with required documents. Paystubs for the last six months, last years tax return, any medical deductions and child care expenses. That information is then given to a child support officer that enters all that info into a work book that calculates the income they both make and then according to current guidlines it determines what each parent is reponsible to pay for the support of that child. That information is then sent to a judge. The judge agrees or disagrees. You do not have to go to court. If you are trying to fight the new order then you would have to get a lawyer and take it from there but it all comes down to how much money you both make and what payments are going out for the care of the child. Twice now in the sixteen years I have been divorced my support payents stopped because he lost his job. The first time he did not go on unemployment and it was so long ago now I can’t remember why but I got nothing for several months. When he did get another job he made less money so he had an assesment done and they lowered the support. It can be done you just have to file for it, and that was in 1995. The second time he did go on unemployment and there was a lul for a month or so but then he got unemployment so I got child support. Now the first was along time ago and there was no law, or there might have been but maybe it was not being enforced, that would have taken away his license or had him thrown in jail. Even if there was it takes a long time for that to happen. I don’t think if a non-custodial parent misses a couple payments they are issuing a warrant. They get warnings, several of them, they get a a chance to inform child support of the reasons they are not paying. The problem that I see is that some non-custodial parents fall on hardships but they do not contact the court to inform them that they lost their job, had major medical issues etc. They just cease to pay which causes the payments to go into arrears, which gets the ball rolling on a contempt of court warrant. When my ex lost his job the second time he was sent a form requesting to update information. They were giving him a chance to tell them why he was not paying. Now I am sure it differs from state to state but in Ohio a non-custodial parent is given a lot of chances to act before they are placed in contempt. If they don’t respond then they are either stupid or they are really trying to buck the system and deserve what the judge gives them. I don’t understand the arguement that these deadbeat parents should not be placed in jail for not paying because it hurts the child. The chid is not getting support as it is, how is placing the parent in jail hurting the child. And I am willing to bet that if the parent is not paying on purpose they are not making any effort to see the child anyway, so there is no vistation lost either. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2007, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-child-support-and-the-eighth-amendment/425584/53 "2007-11-10T12:33:16Z")
[QUOTE=Rubystreak] **Broomstick** , I didn’t think you could just put papers in the mail and get your payments lowered. [/quote] Go back and re-read my post. I said that was the FIRST thing I’d do - not the last. But if you don’t tell the judge there’s a problem how is he/she supposed to know? You get a lot farther in life if you speak up _before_ there is a major problem. > [@](#): > > The person I know who’s been through this had a court date. He showed up with documentation of his new income, which was lowered because of a lay off-- he took a lower paying job rather than go on unemployment. He thought he was doing the right thing. He had no lawyer, and his ex did. The judge disregarded his paperwork, wouldn’t lower the payments, said he was willfully underemployed. So, I’d like a cite that it can be lowered just by putting a letter in the mail. Also note, he’s been at the lowered income for 3+ years now, and the payments haven’t been lowered and won’t be. I _did not say_ you can lower you payments _just_ by putting some paperwork in the mail - if that was true the lawyers and judges would starve. But you have to exert some effort on your behalf. Waiting until you’re dragged into court by another party is stupid. I don’t know the particulars of this situation - OK, he took a lower-paying job - how much lower? Was he making an effort to get a higher paying job or just coasting? Maybe he should have gotten some paperwork in BEFORE the court date. Maybe he should have found a lawyer - as I have already pointed out, there are organizations that help men in just such situations. Maybe his wife is the spawn of Satan and has some of OJ’s legal team. Maybe this guy is a deadbeat asshole. I don’t know. I do, however, know that “data” is not the plural of “anecdocte”. Your story, however heartwrenching, proves nothing except that in this case the payments weren’t lowered. > [@](#): > > He filed for bankruptcy too, btw, after his support didn’t get lowered. Didn’t affect a thing. Yes, I seem to recall hearing that bankruptcy doesn’t elminate child support. Why should it? Married folks who file bankruptcy still have to support their kids, why shouldn’t non-custodials? You can divorce your spouse, _you can’t divorce your offspring_. > [@](#): > > But for every woman getting screwed by her deadbeat ex, some guy is getting screwed by his golddigging ex. Yes. Isn’t the human race admirable? > [@](#): > > Also, I really can’t believe you think a man should follow his kid’s parent around the country if she wants to move. And should his kids be deprived of support if HE decides to move? No, I don’t think the non-custodial should be FORCED to do anything, but all choices have consequences. If the custodial parent moves then the non-custodial has two choices: 1) deal with the complications that distance brings or 2) follow. Pick one. > [@](#): > > Also, people have valid reasons for relocating like… getting a higher paying job, which helps their kids, right? Only if HigherPayingJob is actually making those child support payments… > [@](#): > > Not everyone has a court-ordered custody situation, because if you’re not married to your kid’s mother, you won’t get one in the divorce proceedings. Unmarried folks can indeed find themselves in court-ordered custody arrangements. That’s where we get terms such as “paternity suit” and why DNA testing for paternity is a viable industry. While there are certainly people who whine that that is unfair to the men, it would also be unfair for women to be stuck with sole responsibility for children that required two humans to make, not to mention unfair to the kids who deserve the support of BOTH parents if they are at all able to provide something. > [@](#): > > So, she could move and then what? Quit your job and move to a town where you know no one? My dad did just that 5 times in 4 years and he didn’t even have a divorce as an excuse. Or you could stay home where you’re comfortable and deal with the complications of distance. What are YOU suggesting? Chaining the woman down to a residence that perhaps SHE doesn’t want? Maybe she’s trying to move to a safer neighborhood. Maybe SHE is trying to get a higher paying job! Maybe she’s trying to get an education and has to relocate to a college area. There are a LOT of reasons a woman with children might choose to move, and they aren’t all malicious or aimed at making life hell for her ex. You’re only looking at this from the man’s viewpoint - what if HE moves away from HER? Suddenly she could be the one unable to afford to go places or chase after him for those payments he _legally obligated_ to pay. > [@](#): > > Could wind up with a crappier job, and your support payments not getting lowered because you CHOSE to take a lower paying job. Well, gee - if I CHOOSE to take a lower paying job nothing _else_ in my life is going to go down in price! My rent will be the same. No one will lower my car payments. I don’t get a discount at the grocery store. Why should child support payments be any different? Aren’t children _at least_ as important as your car? Oh, wait - if you hit hard financial times you can _ask_ for you car payment to be lowered. Sometimes that might happen. But no one _has to_ lower it _just because_ you have a lower income. Ditto any other obligations. You can ASK for child support to be lowered and state your reasons but it is NOT automatic you’ll get what you ask for. I’m sorry, were you have trouble understanding this very basic part of the system? Children result in responsibilities and expenses that you can NOT abandon without legal consequences. It’s that simple. You can remove yourself from your ex, but not from your kids. Your responsibility to them _does not end_. If you can’t accept that _don’t have kids_. I realize that that choice may result in some inconveniences, such as assuming responsibility for birth control and not having sex with manipulative/untrustworthy people, but it seems to me that pales in comparison with the inconvenience of such things as child support payments you don’t want and the other potentially nasty fallout from ended relationships involving offspring. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2007, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-child-support-and-the-eighth-amendment/425584/54 "2007-11-10T17:01:20Z")
[QUOTE=Broomstick] Go back and re-read my post. I said that was the FIRST thing I’d do - not the last. But if you don’t tell the judge there’s a problem how is he/she supposed to know? You get a lot farther in life if you speak up _before_ there is a major problem. [/quote] We’re talking apples and oranges here. I was talking about traveling to go to court itself being a hardship because, if you’re broke, you have to get a lawyer and find a way to get yourself there physically. Filing the petition by itself does no good because you have to show up in order for it to be lowered. > [@](#): > > I don’t know the particulars of this situation - OK, he took a lower-paying job - how much lower? Was he making an effort to get a higher paying job or just coasting? Maybe he should have gotten some paperwork in BEFORE the court date. Maybe he should have found a lawyer - as I have already pointed out, there are organizations that help men in just such situations. What are you talking about? You file the petition, then you have a court date. What “papers” was he supposed to get in that he didn’t? The court date is MANDATORY if you want your payments lowered. Having a lawyer is NOT, though not having one is a big mistake. You can either hire one local to yourself, and pay him to travel, or you can hire one local to your ex, in which case you have to travel if you want to meet him. Remember that you’re also broke at this point. I don’t know about the pro bono lawyers. I imagine they are for men with no income, not with some income, just not as much as before, but with court ordered support for the higher amount regardless of lowered income. Plus arrears. Plus child care. Plus medical. Amounting to about 40% of the guy’s income. Yes, it does happen. > [@](#): > > Maybe his wife is the spawn of Satan and has some of OJ’s legal team. Maybe this guy is a deadbeat asshole. I don’t know. She was never his wife. I think it’s actually worse if it’s a child out of wedlock, because then there’s no divorce where the visitation is hammered out. You have to take the initiative and do it separately. > [@](#): > > Yes, I seem to recall hearing that bankruptcy doesn’t elminate child support. Why should it? Married folks who file bankruptcy still have to support their kids, why shouldn’t non-custodials? You can divorce your spouse, _you can’t divorce your offspring_. Never said it should eliminate child support. Would prove that maybe the guy needed the lowered payments, no? I mean, you’d think. > [@](#): > > And should his kids be deprived of support if HE decides to move? I’m starting to wonder if you are reading my posts for comprehension. At no point did I ever say children should be deprived of support. Any time to think I might be saying that, reread the above sentence. > [@](#): > > Or you could stay home where you’re comfortable and deal with the complications of distance. What are YOU suggesting? Chaining the woman down to a residence that perhaps SHE doesn’t want? Maybe she’s trying to move to a safer neighborhood. Maybe SHE is trying to get a higher paying job! Maybe she’s trying to get an education and has to relocate to a college area. There are a LOT of reasons a woman with children might choose to move, and they aren’t all malicious or aimed at making life hell for her ex. Couple of things there: never suggested anyone be chained anywhere-- surprising that you’d assume I was saying that when I wasn’t, but… yeah. It would be nice if, in NY, you could file for lowering your support via mail, as SomeUserName said you could in other states. Also, a man can’t really go back to college if he has kids. Can’t get your payments lowered because you went back to school, so forget about THAT idea. But a custodial parent has the freedom to do that. Is that fair? I’m sure you think it is. Doesn’t seem to be, to me. > [@](#): > > You’re only looking at this from the man’s viewpoint - what if HE moves away from HER? Suddenly she could be the one unable to afford to go places or chase after him for those payments he _legally obligated_ to pay. Wrong again. She never has to chase him. He always has to go the county where the support is sent, ie., to wherever she is, if she has custody. > [@](#): > > Well, gee - if I CHOOSE to take a lower paying job nothing _else_ in my life is going to go down in price! My rent will be the same. No one will lower my car payments. I don’t get a discount at the grocery store. Why should child support payments be any different? Aren’t children _at least_ as important as your car? Well, gee - if I CHOOSE to take a lower paying job and I’m the custodial parent, I can adjust what I spend on myself and my kid. Yes, when you have less money, you spend less on things like groceries, entertainment, clothes, for yourself and your child. The non-custodial parent can’t spend less on his kid. It’s not allowed, even though the custodial parent can and would if she fell on financial hardship. If you’re the NCP: not financially feasible to go back to college. You shouldn’t move, but you should follow the kid wherever his mother takes him. You’re not allowed to have a career change if it means less money. All of the above are things the CP is free to do at will. Seems like you think fatherhood = slavery. ---
**Author:** ![diggleblop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ac91a4/32.png) [@diggleblop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/diggleblop)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2007, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-child-support-and-the-eighth-amendment/425584/55 "2007-11-10T17:25:06Z")
When I wanted to get mine lowered, I had to go to the courthouse and file a petition to get payments lowered. Then I had to have a damn good reason for doing so. I do, in the opinion of three different doctors, two of whom are specialists, I am considered disabled. This whole process took two months before I got a court date. The night before the date, I called my ex and asked her if she was going to agree to lowering it temporarily until I had my Social Security hearing for disability. She said she would agree to lowering it to $150.00 but only for 6 months. The day of the hearing, I was standing before the Judge, I had a stack of paperwork proving I was disabled. There was a letter from a Doctor that my ex didn’t have and I was just about to hand her the document when the Judge said, “wait, is this the first time she’s getting this document, Mr. Buckler?” I stated that it was, but we discuessed everything last night. Do you know that Judge said, “I’m just going to throw this request for modification out. There’s no reason your ex shouldn’t have a copy of this by now, Mr. Buckler. Next time be prepared and sorry that your petition couldn’t be modified, have a good day, sir.” As you can expect, I was so mad that the only thing I could see was myself strangling that Judge. And that’s scary, when you’re so mad you actually think about strangling someone. I went through a living hell trying to get this court date, it tooks two months, many trips to the courthouse and lots of arguements with my ex. Long(er) story short, I re-filed and it took another three months to get my support lowered. But it finally got lowered for 6 months. So my point is this, the Judges have all the say, even though her and I agreed to lower my support, the Judge STILL THROUGH OUT THE PETITION even though we both agreed to have it lowered ! Incredible ! I felt like I WAS TREATED LIKE A CRIMINAL. He still to this day looks and talks to me like I’m a criminal. And all we are are parents. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2007, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-child-support-and-the-eighth-amendment/425584/56 "2007-11-10T17:27:07Z")
[QUOTE=Rubystreak] We’re talking apples and oranges here. I was talking about traveling to go to court itself being a hardship because, if you’re broke, you have to get a lawyer and find a way to get yourself there physically. Filing the petition by itself does no good because you have to show up in order for it to be lowered. [/quote] Traveling can be a hardship - but are you talking about someone with a minimum wage job who _could_ be earning more? Airfares are amazingly low, there is Greyhound… Sure, it may be a hardship but is it really impossible as you’re implying? > [@](#): > > What are you talking about? You file the petition, then you have a court date. What “papers” was he supposed to get in that he didn’t? Any and all supporting documentation for his position. Whatever is required. **SomeUserName** listed examples. > [@](#): > > The court date is MANDATORY if you want your payments lowered. Having a lawyer is NOT, though not having one is a big mistake. You are correct - so stupid people have more problems than smart ones. > [@](#): > > You can either hire one local to yourself, and pay him to travel, or you can hire one local to your ex, in which case you have to travel if you want to meet him. What, you can’t do some of this business over the phone, via mail, whatever? Funny… you can communicate at least part of the time from afar in other legal matters, why not child support, thereby limiting travel to an absolute minimum? > [@](#): > > I don’t know about the pro bono lawyers. I imagine they are for men with no income, not with some income, just not as much as before, but with court ordered support for the higher amount regardless of lowered income. Sliding fee scales. You have to ask and hunt around, but you can do that by phone or, nowadays, by the internet (which you can access for free at most public libraries around here). In some cases you can get a lowered fee based on income minus child support. Hell, these outfits advertise on TV all the damn time for “fathers’ rights”. I hear ads on the radio, too. > [@](#): > > Plus arrears. Plus child care. Plus medical. Amounting to about 40% of the guy’s income. Yes, it does happen. Why are you always assuming the man is the non-custodial parent? I used to work with a woman MD who was non-custodial and yes, she had to pay a sizable portion of her income to her ex who was supporting the kids. It’s a less common arrangement, but aside from the gender reversal no different in regards to aggravation. > [@](#): > > She was never his wife. I think it’s actually worse if it’s a child out of wedlock, because then there’s no divorce where the visitation is hammered out. You have to take the initiative and do it separately. Yep, out-of-wedlock probably IS worse in some ways. > [@](#): > > Never said it should eliminate child support. Would prove that maybe the guy needed the lowered payments, no? I mean, you’d think. What I can’t figure out is WHY the payments weren’t lowered if it was such an obvious problem - seriously, did he piss off the judge or something? > [@](#): > > It would be nice if, in NY, you could file for lowering your support via mail, as SomeUserName said you could in other states. Yes, it would. It makes a hell of a lot of sense, actually, because it avoids clogging the courts and would also seem reasonable in taking actual income/ability to pay into account. Perhaps you should lobby for more reasonable laws and systems in your state because, apparently, these things vary from place to place. > [@](#): > > Also, a man can’t really go back to college if he has kids. Can’t get your payments lowered because you went back to school, so forget about THAT idea. But a custodial parent has the freedom to do that. Is that fair? I’m sure you think it is. Doesn’t seem to be, to me. Why can’t he go back to college? What, he can’t apply for need based financial aid? It’s based partly on number of _dependents_ and if he’s paying child support he’s got dependents. What, he can’t seek out a job were tuition reimbursement is a benefit? (Frequently, you can get this by working for a college or university, although my former employer used to subsidize a limited number of employees in getting their MBA’s, paying 90% of the cost, including the full costs of textbooks). I’m not saying it’s easy - but it’s _possible_. > [@](#): > > Wrong again. She never has to chase him. He always has to go the county where the support is sent, ie., to wherever she is, if she has custody. That’s the way it’s SUPPOSED to work, but there have been cases of men skipping town, crossing state lines, and the women having to pursue them to enforce payment. There are services out there that do just that, for a 30% cut of whatever owed money is recovered. Custodial parents accept this sometimes because 70% of some is better than 100% of nothing, which is what they would get otherwise. > [@](#): > > Well, gee - if I CHOOSE to take a lower paying job and I’m the custodial parent, I can adjust what I spend on myself and my kid. Up to a point - if you neglect them you can _go to jail_. Many people see non-payment of child support as a form of neglect. > [@](#): > > Seems like you think fatherhood = slavery. Again, why do you always assume it will be the father who is non-custodial. I know it may be shocking to you, but sometimes it’s the other way around and non-custodial women receive no more breaks than their male counterparts. Part of the problem here really is the confrontational attitude of the adults involved. I realize there are situations where one person is Teh Evil and the other victimized but they are the exception, not the rule. Parenthood does entail a certain amount of permanent obligations. If you view that as slavery perhaps you shouldn’t have kids, but you are _obligated_ to provide for your offspring and child support usually ends at 18 - you’re not looking at forever, unless you’re stupid enough to keep generating kids you don’t want to support. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2007, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-child-support-and-the-eighth-amendment/425584/57 "2007-11-10T17:35:54Z")
[QUOTE=diggleblop] There was a letter from a Doctor that my ex didn’t have and I was just about to hand her the document when the Judge said, “wait, is this the first time she’s getting this document, Mr. Buckler?” I stated that it was, but we discuessed everything last night. Do you know that Judge said, “I’m just going to throw this request for modification out. There’s no reason your ex shouldn’t have a copy of this by now, Mr. Buckler. Next time be prepared and sorry that your petition couldn’t be modified, have a good day, sir.” [/QUOTE] Not to diminish your frustration, but why _didn’t_ you give a copy of that document to your ex BEFORE you entered the courtroom? It seems if you gave her a copy of everything else you understand the necessity of not holding anything back - and by doing what you did, in front of the judge, it really can look like you were withholding information from the other party. That’s a no-no. It seems that if you had handed it to her even just before you went in that room you might have been OK… so why did you wait and do it in front of the judge? No, it doesn’t seem fair but that is the way the system works. If you know that going in you can at least make sure all the paperwork is in order before you go before the judge. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2007, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-child-support-and-the-eighth-amendment/425584/58 "2007-11-10T17:47:46Z")
[QUOTE=Broomstick] Traveling can be a hardship - but are you talking about someone with a minimum wage job who _could_ be earning more? Airfares are amazingly low, there is Greyhound… Sure, it may be a hardship but is it really impossible as you’re implying? [/quote] It’s a hardship. Nothing is impossible. Realize also that lawyers have to travel too, and you have to pay for that too. All of these things might contribute to a guy who’s sliding into a hole on his support not being able to get the payments lowered until he’s already in trouble. > [@](#): > > Any and all supporting documentation for his position. Whatever is required. **SomeUserName** listed examples. You file the petition. You get the court date. You show up and talk to a judge. That’s how it works. I really have no idea what you are talking about-- you file all the documentation you want, but you STILL have to have a court date. > [@](#): > > You are correct - so stupid people have more problems than smart ones. Wow, more snide glibness. Never stops, eh? No, actually, poor people have more problems than ones with money for lawyers. That’s pretty much a universal truth. If to you, stupid = poor, then, I don’t know what to say to you about that. > [@](#): > > What, you can’t do some of this business over the phone, via mail, whatever? Funny… you can communicate at least part of the time from afar in other legal matters, why not child support, thereby limiting travel to an absolute minimum? No, you have to meet with a judge. No, you can’t do it over the phone. As diggleblop stated, even if you make an agreement with your ex over the phone, that has no effect on what the judge will say. You still have to travel. > [@](#): > > Sliding fee scales. Not really. Most lawyers don’t have them, and the good ones definitely don’t. > [@](#): > > Why are you always assuming the man is the non-custodial parent? Because most are. Not all, and women who are NCPs I’m sure suffer the same hardships. > [@](#): > > What I can’t figure out is WHY the payments weren’t lowered if it was such an obvious problem - seriously, did he piss off the judge or something? He had no lawyer. She had a very good one. He got totally screwed. This guy dropped out of college to move to where her job was, and her family. She got him a job that paid better than he could have gotten elsewhere. When they broke up (she cheated), he wanted to move back to where his family and friend were, as would anyone. But he couldn’t get a job that paid the same amount, because really, he had no degree. But his support level was already set, and he couldn’t make that much anymore. That’s willful underemployment, and he can’t afford to go back to college now. I know, anecdote, data, sure. > [@](#): > > Why can’t he go back to college? What, he can’t apply for need based financial aid? It’s based partly on number of _dependents_ and if he’s paying child support he’s got dependents. Financial aid is another debt to incur on top of child support. I remember being in college, working 30 hours a week and getting my degree. If I had to pay child support based on the salary I was making before I reduced my hours… forget it. It’s not feasible. > [@](#): > > What, he can’t seek out a job were tuition reimbursement is a benefit? No, he can’t. There just aren’t too many of those. You have got to be kidding me. > [@](#): > > That’s the way it’s SUPPOSED to work, but there have been cases of men skipping town, crossing state lines, and the women having to pursue them to enforce payment. There are services out there that do just that, for a 30% cut of whatever owed money is recovered. Custodial parents accept this sometimes because 70% of some is better than 100% of nothing, which is what they would get otherwise. That “crossing state lines” thing doesn’t work anymore. > [@](#): > > Up to a point - if you neglect them you can _go to jail_. Many people see non-payment of child support as a form of neglect. You have to neglect a kid pretty badly to go to jail for it. Just not buying new sneakers, or buying cheaper food, or shopping at the Salvation Army isn’t going to land you in jail. Again, really, give me a break. The CP has lots of options for dealing with lowered income. The NCP has very few. His situation can legitimately change but his payments won’t. > [@](#): > > Parenthood does entail a certain amount of permanent obligations. If you view that as slavery perhaps you shouldn’t have kids, but you are _obligated_ to provide for your offspring and child support usually ends at 18 - you’re not looking at forever, unless you’re stupid enough to keep generating kids you don’t want to support. No, I think YOU view it as slavery. Not me. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2007, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-child-support-and-the-eighth-amendment/425584/59 "2007-11-10T18:47:52Z")
[QUOTE=Rubystreak] No, I think YOU view it as slavery. Not me. [/QUOTE] That wasn’t fair. Sorry. It’s an emotional issue, even one step removed from it as I am. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2007, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-child-support-and-the-eighth-amendment/425584/60 "2007-11-10T21:59:27Z")
[QUOTE=Rubystreak] It’s a hardship. Nothing is impossible. Realize also that lawyers have to travel too, and you have to pay for that too. [/quote] Why does the lawyer have to travel? When we needed legal services for my mother-in-law in Tennessee we didn’t hire a lawyer in Indiana and pay for him to travel to Tennessee, we hired a Tennessee lawyer near where she lived. There were two face-to-face consultations and the rest was done by phone. Why can’t NCP hire a lawyer near where he will be appearing in court, thereby eliminating that travel expense. > [@](#): > > You file the petition. You get the court date. You show up and talk to a judge. That’s how it works. I really have no idea what you are talking about-- you file all the documentation you want, but you STILL have to have a court date. I’m not debating you have to file and obtain a court date - but as **diggleblop’s** post demonstrates, failure to have all documents properly distributed to all parties can cost you dearly. Why do you fail to understand _“supporting documentation”?_ It’s the means by which you demonstrate your income has changed and you can no longer pay the prior amount. Or do you expect me to believe someone can go in front of a judge and have their payments adjusted _without_ proof of income? That’s in _addition_ to your petition for a court date and if you don’t have it you sure as hell aren’t getting an adjustment. > [@](#): > > Wow, more snide glibness. Never stops, eh? No, actually, poor people have more problems than ones with money for lawyers. That’s pretty much a universal truth. If to you, stupid = poor, then, I don’t know what to say to you about that. Stupid rich people screw up, too - it’s just that they have more resources to waste doing it. And poor people who are smart will have their ducks in a row before going to a judge and will hunt around for a lawyer willing to help them. They aren’t too proud to fly cheap fares, or take the bus, or ask for a ride to courthouse. > [@](#): > > You still have to travel. Never denied you did, but I have trouble believing that it is as impossible as you imply to show up for a court date. > [@](#): > > Not really. Most lawyers don’t have them, and the good ones definitely don’t. Funny - that contradicts what I’ve heard from lawyers. Heck I’m _made use of_ sliding-fee legal services. Of course, you have to PROVE you are poor as dirt, which, guess what, requires _supporting documentation_. And lawyers aren’t going to widely advertise their willingness to adjust fees any more than doctors are going to do so - because those who CAN pay really do need to pay so the expert can keep the lights on in his office. > [@](#): > > He had no lawyer. She had a very good one. He got totally screwed. That is certainly a possibility, but something doesn’t seem right here with your story, which is 2nd hand at best and we’re only hearing one side of this. > [@](#): > > This guy dropped out of college to move to where her job was, and her family. Why didn’t he continue going to college after that move? > [@](#): > > She got him a job that paid better than he could have gotten elsewhere. Really? Is this nepotism or something? He could not possibly have gotten a job at the same income on his own? > [@](#): > > When they broke up (she cheated), he wanted to move back to where his family and friend were, as would anyone. Well, actually, I’m quite happy to be living several miles from my family, and would probably remain in this location should anything happen to my marriage - but perhaps I am just weird. Anyhow - let’s see, he moves in with a woman he’s not married to, let’s her find him a cushy job, drops out of school… sounds to me like there already some caution flags going up. Not that those situations always wind up in disaster, but he did make himself vulnerable. > [@](#): > > But he couldn’t get a job that paid the same amount, because really, he had no degree. He didn’t have a degree? But he had experience… so I’m wondering if maybe he wasn’t qualified some other way? Many employers look for EITHER degree OR experience - and I’m sorry, but yes, in today’s world a degree DOES get you a higher income. Which is why he _should have_ made the effort to finish his degree. But perhaps he was young and naive, it certainly is a phase we all go through. > [@](#): > > But his support level was already set, and he couldn’t make that much anymore. That’s willful underemployment, No, that’s NOT “willful underemployment” if _no one will hire you_ - did he try to apply for such jobs? Did he keep records? If so, did the judge see them? In other words _can he support his statements?_ It’s NOT enough to just say “Judge, I looked but couldn’t find a comparable job.” - you have to back up statements like that in court. > [@](#): > > Financial aid is another debt to incur on top of child support. I remember being in college, working 30 hours a week and getting my degree. If I had to pay child support based on the salary I was making before I reduced my hours… forget it. It’s not feasible. Bullcrap. I’ve known people who’ve done it while paying off various legal liabilities. It’s hard, yes, and _you have to support your statements_ when you go before a judge. Another debt? Yeah - of course the idea is that if you _keep up with_ your child support it’s NOT a debt. Admittedly, though, if you lose a job, get in an accident, etc. you could miss some payments but _missing one or two_ is not going to get you threatened with jail time. For damn sure the judge will not just take your word for your situation, you have to back up your statements. That’s true any time you go before a judge. > [@](#): > > You have to neglect a kid pretty badly to go to jail for it. Just not buying new sneakers, or buying cheaper food, or shopping at the Salvation Army isn’t going to land you in jail. Neglect is a spectrum - and many people view failure to pay child support as neglect. As has been pointed out earlier, missing _just one or two_ payments will not land you in jail, and clearly other people have managed to successfully gain adjustments for legitimate and supported changes in situation - but there are too many horror stories of _wealthy_ men worming out of their legal obligations for the public to have much tolerance for men who fail to pay. Apparently, despite his situation, your friend hasn’t landed in jail either. Gee, I guess he has had to make some adaption in reaction to HIS changed income. I remember my parents doing without things to provide for us kids - how should your friend the parent be different? > [@](#): > > The NCP has very few. His situation can legitimately change but his payments won’t. Oh? You mean your particular example couldn’t - this thread has other examples where people did just that, changed their payments legally. Difficult, yes, but they managed. What’s the difference between them and your friend? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-child-support-and-the-eighth-amendment/425584.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-child-support-and-the-eighth-amendment/425584.md?page=4)