I think that the U.S. Child Support System needs a credit card or food stamp type system. For instance, the person paying the support pays into a fund similar to a bank account. That account is linked to an “Independence Card” that the parent receiving the support has on their person.
They can use this card for almost anything; certain bills, food, clothing, car payments (kid needs a ride) and various other items. The card can’t be used for cash, cigs, alcohol, casinos or strip clubs. For cash (because cash is needed at times) maybe have it to where there is a certain percentage that can be taken out of the card and that’s it.
Other programs such as WIC and Food stamps are set up to only allow certain items, why can’t this one? There would be a few kinks to work out, but I strongly feel that it would work. I think a lot of people would start paying their support once they realize that the money was actually going to the children instead of being used for God knows what.
Where there’s a system, there’s a way to abuse it. Someone who’s determined to spend money in a certain way will figure out a way to do it, even if that means buying “approved” items with the card and then selling them to others for cash.
There’d be a lot of grey areas in this idea. What kind of clothes would be allowed? The recipient could spend it all on a designer outfit for themselves. What kind of car? What if the recipient decides to buy a new sportscar? What sort of bills? If you could use the card to pay a credit card bill, it wouldn’t make a dent in wasteful spending.
Nor do I agree that more people might be willing to pay child support if they “knew the money was going to the kid.” There are a lot of men out there who just don’t care about their kids. (I’ve even seen some go as far as to quit their jobs so they wouldn’t have to pay child support.) Some resent it because of spite for their ex even if they know the money is desperately needed.
If you could safeguard it, I totally agree with the idea. There was a morning radio show on the subject of women that would buy stuff for themselves on purpose to spite the father. Women would have their own income and abuse the support money on fashion and high-end luxuries. Not surprisingly, many women called in to confirm this was true. That’s wrong IMO. If you have good income and the money coming in is “extra” and not needed. It should be invested for the child, and not used for a Lexus car payment, or the latest and greatest in fashion.
But for the reasons Lissa stated, it would be hard to legislate responsibility. Although if they can do it with foods stamps, why not this?
There was a morning radio show on a topic that provoked moral outrage and prompted listeners to call in with their own anectodes to support the premise of the horror?
Wow. That’s a first.
My question is this: why apply this only to custodial parents in child support cases? Why not apply it to all parents? Have the government confiscate a certain percentage of their income every month, and place it in an account that can be used only for essential items.
As a non-parent, I don’t see a problem with it.
Bull. In my personal and/or professional experience, the vast majority of deadbeats are people who are either self-absorbed assholes who really don’t care if their children starve, idiots who don’t understand the concept of “obeying a court order”, or terminally immature man-children who are perfectly content floating through life on the proceeds of the occasional two-week stint as a grocery bagger or a house painter. Or some combination of the three.
I ran across a handful of non-paying NCP’s who were truly down-on-their-luck, grasping at straws, and doing their absolute best to do right by their kids, but guess what: I never saw those guys get hauled in to court, have their driver’s licenses suspended, or their assets confiscated. I’ll let you in on a little secret: as long as you’re paying something - ANYTHING - most child support enforcement agencies won’t bring the hammer down. They’re busy enough chasing the depressingly large number of people who can’t (or won’t) get off their ass to send in a stinking sawbuck once a month.
While the child should never be neglected, what makes you think it is possible to parse what portion of the single parent’s (SP) inflows go to the child. You don’t want the SP buying alcohol or going on vacation? Why not - just because you don’t approve? If a trip to AC helps the SP cope with the day-to-day hassles of being a single parent, they should go. You want to limit cash? How about rent payments? Should a SP have to get a special dispensation because they live in a privately-owned apartment? Or does putting a roof over the child’s head not count as support.
Food Stamps work because they are only for one class of goods, and they can still be an administrative nightmare.
For the record, I do pay child support. Hopefully other non-custodial parents will come in to show a lack of support for such penny-ante bullshit.
A few years ago, a home business belonging to an acuqaintance of mine was destoryed by a fire. She needed temporary cash assistance because it was her primary job, but all she could get was food stamps. She complained about this at a party, and instantly, a friend offered to buy the card’s value from her every month to help her out.
“Uhm, I’m pretty sure that’s illegal,” I said when everyone hesitated. My acquaintance declined the offer.
That’s how food stamp fraud happens. It’s not always done by people who are trying to make a racket of it, but by people who abuse the system to get their needs met (both licit and illicit) through the help of friends. The friends don’t intend to commit fraud, but of course, that’s what it really is.
You could also read any of the various threads we’ve had on food stamps and see plenty of examples of people abusing the program through the things they purchase legally.
Then you’ve never been to a Maryland court. I have been declared 100% disabled and was 3 months late on my support and making $150 a month towards it and was still hauled into court for owing only $1100. They gave me 12 days to pay it or I went to jail. I obviously borrowed money I couldn’t afford to borrow until my worker’s comp settlement came through last month.
Absolutely not. A trip to Atlantic City shouldn’t be paid for by money that is supposed to go to my child. Period.
Sure, rent should go towards support. But alcohol and craps don’t in any way benefit the child. You can say it’s releasing stress or whatever, but take a hot bath and masturbate to release stress.
I think a lot of penisbearers (I refuse to call them men) would get their stupid little control freak jollies off such a system. If we were allowed to flog deadbeat parents on the courthouse steps, more of them would pay voluntarily, and we could sell tickets to the flogging to raise money for more schild support enforcement.
I think this could perhaps help in some cases, but I wouldn’t like to see it put to mandatory use. I think it should be by request of either parent (I’d expect it to be requested more often by the non-custodial parent, of course) and authorized by a judge. That way, **diggleblop **can request limitations on what his kids’ money is spent on, and D_Odds kids’ money can be allocated as his ex sees fit.
Frankly, I think a far easier and cheaper way to do it would be for a judge to require a log-book and copies of reciepts from the custodial parent, showing what the money was spent on. If the judge, in his professional opinion, feels the custodial parent is spending more than can be accounted for in direct support for the kids, then he or she should be ordered to stop the behavior or face contempt charges, jail times, or “fines” which go into a trust fund for the kids.
Would I personally request limitations on my ex’s spending? It depends on how egregious I thought the choices were. If my kids are well fed, clothed, adequately prepared for school and moderately entertained, then I think their dad would be justified using some leftovers for vacation time once in a while - if he’s that good at penny pinching, let him reap the benefits. If they’re not being well tended and he’s blowing the cash every weekend on beers and hookers, then I’d be pissed and demand more acountability. If there was a whole lot of money left over every month, I’d question the need for such a high child support determination, try to get it changed and invest the money in college funds, if he wouldn’t do it himself.
The older I get, the more I detest one-size-fits-nobody solutions.
So you want to create another government bureaucracy to manage the personal lives of people? Who is going to pay for it? Will it be a federal program (uniformity across the country) or a state program (where each state sets their own standards)? I see a bureaucratic nightmare that will end up as another government program of waste and abuse, and parents doing whatever they can to stay out of the system. Are you going to turn in a parent hiding their kids from the government?
As ParentalAdvisory stated earlier, you cannot legislate responsibility.
I think you are acting like child support is a form of welfare.
Roughly a quarter of my income comes from child support. I don’t set this money aside, or do accounting to make sure that a quarter of my income goes directly into buying things that benefit my daughter. The money I receive from child support goes into my household budget and I make sure all needs are taken care of. I might guess 95% of my total income benefits my daughter in some way, so please don’t fault me for spending a little of my household budget on myself once in a while.
For example, a few weeks ago when depositing the support check I reserved $20 and had my nails done. Some might say that I was using “my daughter’s money” for something frivolous for myself. In reality it would have made no logical difference if I had deposited the whole thing and then went and taken a twenty out of the ATM (assuming there was plenty in the account before I deposited the support check, of course, and there was).
It’s my understanding that child support is an obligation from a non-custodial parent to his children, since the custodial parent is the legal guardian the custodial parent gets control of the child support funds, but they are typically intended to be used for the child either directly or indirectly. I do not think “indirectly” extends to “trips to Atlantic City” or “booze” for the custodial parent so they feel better.
From what I understand in some states courts can ever require the custodial parent give an accounting of how they’ve spent the money, specifically because they aren’t supposed to be spending it on trips to Atlantic City or booze. As for the matter of rent, I believe that stuff that benefits the child (like having shelter) even if it benefits more than just the child can still count (ie rent, eventhough it benefits both the custodial parent and the child to have a home to live in.)
Money from one former spouse to the other for the personal use of the adults is usually called alimony, which is a separate thing from child support, at least as I understand it.
That was veiled sarcasm on my part. Heavily veiled.
Actually, it was Lissa who said it, and PA who seems willing to make a go of it.
To me, the notion that, except in extreme cases, the courts or NCP should have any say in how the CP spends particular dollars of their household budget is no less ridiculous in a child support context than it would be for a two-parent household.
Why should we automatically assume that child support recipients are any more likely to go blow their children’s money on the ponies than anybody else? It’s demeaning and insulting.
Hell, it’s not even practical. What’s to prevent the CP from spending every last cent of the restricted funds on food, clothing, shelter, &c on the kids and him/her self, and spend every last cent of his/her other income on vodka and cigarettes?
If the kids are being ill-cared for or otherwise mistreated, the NCP always has the option of suing for custody. Or even calling child protective services, if they don’t want the priveledge of raising the kids as a single parent themself.
I’ve heard of people even making a profit on it. I’ve heard stories of being able to get a couple hundred dollars of food stamps for as little as $.50 on the dollar.
My thoughts are that at least a dozen states already have debit card systems for disbursing child support, and in some cases alimony, and in some cases unemployment benefits. Part of my job is customer service for cardholders. OTTOMH, we service Iowa, Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota and a few other states I’m not remembering for child support, Arkansas, Ohio and Minnesota for unemployment and some random state programs for these and other states. Some of the CS states are also alimony states. The recipients are issued cards with VISA logos that can be used anywhere VISA is accepted. Money is deducted directly from the paying parent’s paycheck (income tax refunds and other revenue sources are also tapped) and transferred to the state. The state then transmits them to the card.
It makes no difference whether restrictions are placed on where the card can be used because if the parent is determined to buy alcohol or whatever else the nanny state decides to restrict they’ll find a way to get cash off the card and use it for their restricted purchases. Most credit/debit cards won’t work at casinos any more as I uderstand it, because the issuing banks won’t allow it, not because the state government has stepped in and restricted it.
Cardholders who want to game the system have already figured out ways to do it. Semi-fraudulent gas purchases are a big problem. The cardholder can buy a tankful of gas whether they have enough to pay for it or not, because of how pay at the pump gas purchases are authorized. These people figure out how it works and basically temporarily steal money from the state. They get charged overdraft fees for doing it, but they know if their babydaddy (or babymama, some men have child support cards too) isn’t going to be paying anything for a long time they know there’s no way for the state to recover that money.
While I agree that a lot of men don’t give a shit, I know a lot of men, personally, who hate having to pay child support because they know the mother is blowing it. My boyfriend pays child support and we still have to sometimes do stuff like buy his daughter clothing for school, and one time she called his mother frantic because she’d started her period and her mom didn’t have money for pads.
I think this is a very big problem, and I agree that there should be some sort of restrictions on what parents can use it for - bills, food, clothing, hygene products, yes. I know a lot of mothers, personally as well, who abuse the system like mad. And it’s not fair to the kids, who wind up with the shitty end of the stick.
Also, there are a lot of WOMEN (or custodial parents, sometimes men win too) out there who just don’t give a shit. If at least there could be a way to monitor how child support is spent, then I think courts could judge what kind of parenting the kids are getting. I know too many mothers who would blow the money all the time, except for when they knew that they were getting an inspection - then their kids mysteriously had new clothes and toys (and a reason to act like nothing was wrong).