I’m not sure how my name got into this issue, as my comments concerned specifically the statute of limitations issue. But while on the subject, I’ll endorse the comments earlier by KellyM that
Hello erislover
Along the lines of the argument that the fact that your biological father fathered you entails a natural obligation on his part goes the argument that you by virtue of being this child have a claim to his support. This is the side of the bargain that you seem to have trouble with, since you seem to feel that you have renounced any such claim either by lack of action or by demonstrating independance.
I think that the child’s right to parental support from both biological parents is one of those rights that you cannot not volontarily abandon. Meaning that just because you don’t claim what is rightfully yours does not change the fact that it is rightfully yours. And if the court already ruled over the obligation, then it is also legally yours. Worrying about how your father will handle the consequences of your taking what is rightfully yours is irrelevant to the fact that it is rightfully yours. It cannot be prejudicial to his new family for you to take what is rightfully yours. Whether or not the money would be useful to you is irrelevant to the money being rightfully yours.
But if you really don’t want to destabilize your father’s life while ridding the monkey from his back, getting independance from him as well, then you could claim what is yours and freely give it all back to him.
I suspect (but don’t want to project) that there is something psychological going on here in the saying that “I was fine without him” “His other biological children are more equal than me” etc.
Kelly’s got it - your mom went into debt because of your dad’s lack of payment. Had she filed for Aid to Families w/Dependant Children, the State would have (1) filled the void and (2)gone after him with a vengence once he became solvent.
Also remember, that c/s is not adjusted for inflation - so whatever per week he was ordered to pay years ago, it was in yesterday’s dollars - so he’s getting quite a bargain at this point.
A former co-worker was in your mom’s position. She scrimped and saved and supported her two kids, and borrowed $$ to make ends meet constantly. His employer felt sorry for him and failed repeatedly to withhold his c/s. When he died, he still owed several thousand $$.
Bottom line to me, swell that he’s managed to get his life in gear etc. But why should reap the benefits of not paying to support his child those other years? IOW - his current nice lifestyle was built on keeping your mom in debt. That’s an inherant unfairness that bugs me.
Signed. Cold hearted me.
My mom actually attempted to get state support once, but they apparently required she sell her car. :rolleyes:
My memory on issues is somewhat lacking as this isn’t a normal conversation between her and I, so I’m not filled in on all the details.
She lurks in the SDMB now and then so perhaps I’ll pass this thread on to her.
I never thought about the economic situation you mention, wring. That is a thought that simply didn’t occur to me. Interestingly enough, that does sort of bring me around on the issue. Hmm.
Wring and Kelly and so many others have it right on.
I kind of think this is mostly your mom’s issue, anyway. She sacrificed, scrimped and saved, for you, while your dad was a bum, and a deadbeat. Yeah, and finally, got his act together. Which is great. But why is she not entitled to a little bit of the money that he (basically) deprived her? I think wring has it totally right, and I don’t think she’s cold-hearted at all.
You seem to be indicating that asking for some of the child support money now won’t break your dad, at all. So why shouldn’t your mom go for the money?
Think of it this way: Years ago, this guy signed a contract with your mom, agreeing to keep up the payments on a certain item (you). 
This guy then promptly bailed out, leaving your mom to bear all the payments by herself. And she did, patiently, for umpteen years. Then finally, this deadbeat partner starts to get his act together. What’s wrong with your mom saying to him, “You know, now that you’ve gotten your act together, would you mind paying me back some of the money you owe me?” Nothing wrong with that, nothing mean or unreasonable about that. Quite the opposite, in fact. Had your mom chose, she could have fought tooth and nail every step of the way to get your dad to pay up. But she waited until he was financially solvent enough, so that paying what he owed wouldn’t damage him too much. Talk about bending over backwards to him! She’s been a complete self-sacrificing saint.
Encourage her to go for this money!
Tracer, you forgot the additional benefit of paying down the credit card debt - no tax implications. You “earn” 14% on each penny of CC debt you pay down and, unlike with “positive” investments, you don’t have to pay income (or capital gains) taxes on your earnings.
The Ryan
In a word, So? You lend $1000 to a friend. You’re doing fine, so you don’t press him to pay you back. 10 years later, you find yourself in a jam and need cash. It’s wrong for you to ask your friend for the money then? Your friend still owes you the money.
In this case, the fact that erl’s mom made it through raising erl OK doesn’t mean that she couldn’t have used the money. By definition, she made sacrifices - perhaps one less vacation, perhaps holding on to that old rustbucket of a car an extra year or two, whatever.
Sua
You pose an interesting question. I don’t really like offering people “advice”, so let me simply explore ho I might make a decision in such circumstances.
I would not seek the money for myself. The reasons are multiple:
[ul][li] I have said that I would not (being “almost 18” didn’t disqualify me from swearing to serve my country, it shouldn’t disqualify me from entering a personal contract.)I do not require the moentary support to become a functioning adult member of society, so I would not judge myself to have been “injured” by my father’s failures.[/li][li]I would prefer to solve my financial complications without calling in assistance from a father who wanted nothing to do with me for most of my life (which perhaps betrays my sometimes self-destructive independent streak).[/ul][/li]So, taking myself out of the equation I must explore the other interested parties.
[ul][li]My father obviously has an interest in keeping all of his money. This interest is demonstrably material, but there might be a psychological aspect to it as well. I can speculate that he might be more comfortable not having to face up to the cost that my mother and I paid for his selfishness. I can extrapolate from the shape of his current life that he has learned the lessons of his neglect, if only unconsciously, and has become a better person than the man who abandoned his family 25 years ago. But I must also recognize that whatever transformation he has undertaken was built upon a severance from his past, not an acceptance of his past responsibilities.[/li][li]My mother has an obvious material interest in the money. She also has a legal right to reimbursement for the unfair burden that my father’s selfishness placed upon her. She may also feel an emotional desire to see the scales “balanced” after so many years. The last desire could easily fall over the edge to a desire for vengeance, but I do not think it does in this case. (My mother’s not like that! And if she were, I think the issue would have come to a crisis long ago.)[/li][li]On a purely financial level, I see no great distinction between my father’s desire to keep his current lifestyle and my mother’s desire to more rapidly improve her current lifestyle. Neither risks poverty or significant hardship should the money go to/stay with the other.[/li][li]On a legal level, my mother surely has the right of the case.[/li][li]On an emotional level, what my father risks was built upon an obligation he has consistently denied. What my mother seeks is resolution for unfair abandonment.[/li][li]On an ethical level, I find more value in my mother’s position than my father’s.[/ul][/li]
Thus: I would assist my mother if she decides to pursue the matter for her own benefit, but I would not seek money for myself nor accept a share of the money should my mother gain it. (Since my mother is also a stubborn beast, this might require me to “make a deal”, allowing her to loan me the money for a down payment on a house after I have cleared my consumer debt, for instance.)
Some interesting and compelling points.
The thing that prevents me from completely supporting my own side is that I am unsure of the validity of my original reasons for turning down the pursuit in the first place.
My original reasons, of course, are listed above. But the point brought up by others is compelling. Consider that I do feel it is a parent’s obligation to care for their child. He did fail to do that. I am now unsure that the fact that I was raised effectively counters that original obligation.
My reasons at the time were derived from the idea of what child support was all about, and that it could, in fact, be counteracted.
Oh, and I wasn’t really looking for advice. Trust that it is my mother’s opinion to do this and I was hesitant—but it certainly is an interesting take on the child support issue.
From a strictly moral perspective I am stuck in a sort of paradox. I feel he is morally obligated to pay the money no matter what. I also feel that I am not morally obligated to make him do this. :shrug:
At the end of the week my mom will do what she wants, and whatever she chooses I will support her in it. It is really more directly her money than mine, IMO. The loan idea you mention is very interesting indeed. I think she would appreciate that.
erislover wrote:
But if you work the numbers, you will discover that, no matter how much or how little credit card debt you have now, if you put all of your extra income into paying down your credit card debt instead of putting some into the credit cards and some into a savings fund for a home down-payment, and then borrow (from your credit cards) the remaining amount you need for your home down-payment when you make said down-payment, then:
(A) You will pay off your credit card debts faster, and
(B) Even after you borrow (from your credit cards) that money to make the home down-payment, your total credit card will still be less.
Say it all you want, tracer. I have $0.00 saved right now. This is not a good situation to be in. I can pay off my credit cards in five years and have a downpayment in a house in those same five years. During those five years, I will also have spare money. Perhaps you are missing the key component here: I don’t want to live off my credit cards anymore. Period. If I only pay down my credit cards I have no choice but to live off them in an emergency. I have lived off my credit cards for the past 5 years of my life which is what got me in the fucking situation I’m in right now.
It really isn’t that hard to understand. This is not the best economic solution; it is the best personal solution. For me. The end.
If I wanted to save long term I’d invest in my 401K plan which is matched 100% by the company, far outweighing credit cards. But I would still have no money. Ok?
Do you have anything to add that isn’t about financial matters?
For example, suppose you have $9000 in credit card debt. You know that 5 years (60 months) from now, you’re going to make a $8500 down payment on a home. Suppose that your credit cards have an annual interest rate of 14% and compound that interest monthly.
Scenario 1:
You put $300 per month into paying down your credit card debt and $125 per month into a savings account (which starts with a 0 balance). Let’s say this is a top-notch performing savings account, which yields 5% annual interest (compounded monthly). After your credit card debts are completely paid off, you switch to putting all $425 per month into your savings account.
In this scenario, your credit cards will be paid off after 37 months. (Actually, there’ll still be a tiny outstanding balance, but we can fudge the numbers here a bit for our purposes.) At this 37-month point, your savings account will have a balance of $4989.35. For the remaining 23 months, you put $425 per month into your savings account, at the end of which your savings balance will be $15,726.43.
Scenario 2:
You put all $425 per month into paying down your credit card debt, and switch to putting all $425 per month into the same savings account as in Scenario 1 (which also starts with 0 balance) when your credit card debts are completely paid off.
In this scenario, your credit cards will be paid off after 24 months. For the remaining 36 months, you put $425 per month into your new savings account, at the end of which your savings balance will be $16,470.17.
If you follow scenario 2, not only will your credit cards be paid off 13 months faster, but your savings balance will be over $700 larger!
…
I just did a refresh and read your reply to my last message, erislover. While having real cash “saved aside” is in fact a good idea – in case all of your credit card companies decide to turn mean and not let you buy things with your credit cards anymore – be aware that by doing this you are prolonging the amount of time you will be carrying credit card debt with you.
Tracer, unwanted financial advice is rarely perceived as a generous gift, no matter how it is intended.
It is in Minnesota. Every two years. Whether you’re actively paying or not.
My thoughts on this are:
-
Talk to an experienced lawyer.
-
If you decide to go through with it, try, just once, asking him for the money up front, then give him some time to think about it. He might decide that a one-time payment might be preferable to a long, drawn out litigation process after which he’d end up paying anyway.
-
If you think he might take the time and hide his assets, skip number 2, and get the order. You can find out where he banks during the court proceedings. When you leave the courtroom, go directly to the bank and lay claim to whatever he has in his account. Get a lien filed against his home and business if your state allows that.
-
Kiss goodbye to any thoughts of a relationship you might have had with him, but it seems you’ve done that already, so no big loss.
I’ve stated in previous threads how much I dislike being forced to pay more that what I consider my fair share of my son’s support. HOWEVER…I have nothing but distate for anyone, male or female, that doesn’t take part (financially, emotionally and what-ever-else-ally) in bringing up their child.
He owes you, probably more than you’ll ever know.
No. You assume that when I wasn’t saving I was putting more money toward the credit cards. I wasn’t. I was spending it. Period. I am in debt, and stay in debt, because I like to spend the money I have.
There is no other scenario available to me.
Ah. That’s different. Money burns a hole in your pocket, and all that.
My opinion is that you need to divorce your own money needs from your decision. If you go after him for what he legally owes your mother and yourself, you need to do that saying “I’d do it no matter what.” Because it is a moral issue, not a need issue, at this point. You have to live with the aftermath (it might lead to bitterness on his part, or paltry crappy payments drawn out over years, or whatever) and I think you need to be able to deal with that on the firm foundation of “I did this because it was right” not “I did this because at the time I needed some money.” Your money situation may change (get better, or worsen) and I don’t won’t you to feel either more guilty or more righteous because of that.
So ask yourself if you still would want to do this if you won the lottery. If the answer is yes, then go for it. If no, I’d recommend against it. Not because I think he should be exempt from this obligation, but because that answer suggests that you don’t really see this is a moral/accountability issue right now as much as a practical/financial one. It’s no flaw on your character is the latter is your main impetus, but I think it will make it harder to deal with this later, if things get difficult with him.
I’d also point out that will not be easy for him to sell a $200,000 house and move into a $180,000 house (the example you threw out there). That would involve two huge financial transactions, both with costs, plus a move. A house is not a liquid investment. This is one of the reasons why you might not see all the money in a hurry. I guess you probably knew that… so I throw this out there lest other readers misunderstand how hard it can be to get one’s mitts on $20,000 even when you have assets.
Well Cranky, a house isn’t exactly a liquid asset, to be sure. But it certinaly demonstrates that he does have the money and credit available to him, knowwhatImean? And stepping down from a 200K house to a more modestly priced 150K (in the area he lives in, which I’d obviously prefer not to mention) isn’t going to impact his life much at all, apart from the inconvenience of moving.
And see, the “payments over years” thing is what gets my goat. I would like to think that if it is shown that he can get the money together lump-sum and not have it dramatically affect him then he should darn well have to do that.
Would I still do it if I won the lottery? Hell no. I think if we won the lottery as I was growing up he could easily have the child support ruling overturned, yeah? So that’s sort of a moot point.
tracer sez
And how, man. So many video games, movies, CDs, books, magazines, oh my oh my oh my.
Well, I hate to contradict what has been said before, and I’m by no means saying either that you should not seek back child support (that’s your decision) or that you wouldn’t receive it (you might), but I think it might be quite a bit harder to get than you might think.
While it is true that the law recognizes a non-dischargeable and non-transferrable obligation to support one’s children, it is also true that the law recognizes that sometimes a court must concentrate not so much on what is allowable (legal) as what is fair (equitable).
Courts function both at law and in equity, and in equity (that is, in general fairness, not based on any particular law), IMO you and your mom might have some difficulties. First, your father might claim laches – that is, that you have slept on your rights for such a long time and to such an extent that it would not be fair to him to enforce them against him at this late date. Second, and relatedly, your father might also claim that you are equitably estopped from making the claim, based upon the fact that you knew you could have made it six years ago and affirmatively chose not to do so. I do think the letter you wrote – if your father has it, and if he produces it – presents a real obstacle. It could be read as a knowing waiver of your rights, and the fact that you were not old enough at law to enter into a contract may not mean you were not old enough at equity to waive certain rights – especially since you were, in your own words, “almost eighteen” anyway.
It is true that child support, like other monetary obligations, is not subject to a statute of limitations. It is also true that child support, like other monetary obligations, may be subject to waiver, laches, or estoppel – all at equity, not at law – if you are perceived to be either “sleeping on your rights” or attempting to enforce them unfairly. So this is IMO by no means a slam dunk. At to that the fact that a quick findlaw search reveals at least one jurisdiction (Oklahoma) that does outlaw such claims by back support brought by emancipated adult children – your jurisdiction might have a similar law, for all we know.
None of this is posted to discourage you or influence your decision, but I think the issue if far more complicated than it may at first blush appear.
I must say I am confused now. Ohio law states
But then in another area states
Which, to me, is totally contradictory. The latter seems to be discussing the case where a parent has been paying all along, and it discusses when payments should stop. :shrug: My mother ¤is¤ going to see a lawyer, though, so things should be clearer then.
I dunno. I still think it is a bad idea to go after the cash, laws or no. I can’t help but make have it feel like a vendetta. And I’m just not a vendetta kinda’ guy. Grudge, sure, but no more than that.
And look, I know this seems to easily be an “advice” thread but please, it isn’t. It is truly my mother’s decision and I just held her off for a week to talk about it. Feel free to talk about back child support in a general case (not bloody likely, at this point :p).
ERIS, those provisions are not contradictory. The first one says that if there is back child support owed, and the child becomes an emancipated adult, the back child support is still owed. In other words, it’s a debt, and the fact that the “child” is no longer actually a child does not discharge it.
The second one says that if you have a child support obligation (regardless of whether it’s in arrears or paid up), that obligation will continue until the child graduates from high school, even if the child is eighteen (and therefore technically an adult). This is so that if a kid turns eighteen in, say, February of his senior year, his parent cannot just stop paying support. It has nothing to do with whether or not back child support is owed to an adult child.
It also has nothing to do with the equitable concerns about whether a court would make a parent pay back child support owed for an adult child, if the adult child did not pursue that right in a timely manner. I’d be interested to hear what your mom’s lawyer tells her – not that it’s any of my business.