You would think that Susan’s repeated violations of the decree, and her attempts to block visitation, would be responded to by the court with some sort of sanction. But you would be wrong.
Several times, he have filed with the court asking for relief from Susan’s blatant interference and refusal to cooperate with visitations. The court does nothing. The only thing the court has done is this past summer, when she was refusing to send the kids for their summer visitation. Greg filed a complaint, and the judge ordered Susan to make the visit happen. But then she was refusing to take them to the airport, and when Greg arranged for his friend to take them, she refused that too. See my previous post talking about this. Luckily, she did end up putting them on the plane, but I don’t know what we would have done if she defied the order. Greg would have had to spend a few thousand more dollars following up in court. Even then, what could the court really do to her? Fine her? She has no money. Put her in jail? They’d never put a single mother of 6 in jail. She is pretty much free to do whatever she wants.
I can’t get over this because it is so extremely unjust to the kids. Their money is being misappropriated. Stolen. It is up to Greg to make sure that people charged with the care of this kids don’t steal from them.
The facts are, as admitted in court documents by Susan: Her boyfriend lives in the household, has no income and contributes $0 to the household. Susan has 3 other kids whose father is in prison, therefore paying no support.
Let’s do the math:
8 people in the household with their income: Susan + 3 younger kids ($700 in welfare), Boyfriend ($0), Greg’s 3 kids ($2,500)
Greg pays $2,500 which is meant for the 3 kids. That is $833.33 meant for the benefit of each child.
Susan and the 3 younger kids get $700 in welfare (Note: I believe that most or all of the welfare is in the form of food stamps) = $175 per person
Add it all together: $2,500 + $700 = $3,200 / 8 people = $400 per person in the household.
$833.33 - $400 = $433.33 <----- This is the amount of money belonging to Greg’s children that is being “stolen” each month.
(Note: I acknowledge that there may be an adjustment needed to account for the welfare but it’s beyond my math skills, so if anyone could help, I’d appreciate it.)
No matter which way you slice and dice it, at the very least, Susan’s boyfriend is being supported by Greg’s kids’ money. That is wrong on so many levels.
Susan is the “fiduciary” or “trustee” or “custodian” of her sons’ money. It is her duty to not misappropriate this support. She may not be held accountable by the law for what she is doing, but she is seriously morally and ethically wrong.
Just because the law does not exist in California to force Susan to account for how she is using/misusing her sons’ money, doesn’t mean it’s not wrong or that there may someday be such a law. In fact, this law does exist in 11 states, where the parent paying child support can request an accounting. If more parents who are being taken advantage of, like Greg, spoke out about this, and got the word out, more states could pass laws to address these types of issues.
I acknowledge that there is no good way to realistically audit these situations. I can’t reasonably expect Susan to not feed her 3 younger kids the same as her 3 older kids. Or to make them live in the garage while Greg’s kids get the master suite. But I can expect her not to use the money to support her boyfriend, and herself. And I expect our legislators to come up with some sort of viable solution to address this issue. Laws aren’t always easy to make, but that our lawmakers’ job. Somehow the government has come up a way to ensure we all pay our “fair share” in taxes, etc, so they should be able to address this.
another response which bemoans gregs situation and then in the same breath points out how he didnt want to remedy the situation because it would be detrimental to him…
and its all related to how he **has **to live 3000 miles from them because of his employment decision.
How am I saying that he “didn’t want to remedy the situation”? His attorney told him there was nothing he could do because the court is not going to be able to sanction her. And I also said that he has repeatedly filed complaints with the court and no action was taken. There have been scores of pages describing each instance of interference by Susan that have been submitted to the court. In several years, the court has never issued so much as a warning to Susan.
By the way, Rumor, just curious, do you have a shift key on your keyboard? Or an apostrophe?
you can say it till you’re blue in the face, but doing so doesn’t make it so.
she is not the fiduciary.
she is not the trustee
she is not the custodian
and it is not her sons’ money.
do you not understand this?
and no, she’s not morally and ethically wrong. is a custodial parent supposed to not live a life in a certain way lest it cause “theft” of the NCP’s child support money?
if you’re going to claim morality and ethical behavior here, you’re going to have to demonstrate that it is amoral and unethical in every case where even one red cent doesn’t get spent on the children. you can’t. because it’s absurd.
And, here you go again with your woefully biased presentation of facts. In these states, parents can request the accounting, but only the court orders it.
Here are the statutory snippets for each state. Or, more precisely, someone’s research on them:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/rules/child_support/#g9
Do you not see how these rules contemplate completely different types of behavior than “boo hoo! some of my kids’ hamburger helper is going to feed momma, or one of my kids’ step siblings?” it’s focus is more “boo hoo! momma went and bought an iphone 4 while letting little boo starve”
the more you talk on this subject, the more it just becomes plainly evident that you, or greg, or whoever, is just really chapped that his dough is being spent by someone other than greg.
tough shakes. that’s what child support is all about.
you’re bitching about how he may have had to spend a little more money to ensure that his kids got on the plane had it not worked out in the end. here’s a tip: fly out there and collect them yourself. or don’t live 3000 miles away and expect painless visitation.
In fact, there has been a case (can’t find a cite right now) where a father with full visitation rights has had those rights terminated. Even though he paid child support in full every month. Even though he was a good father. Even though the vindictive wife broke court order after order after order, and was cited time and again for contempt of court for failing to grant those rights. She did everything wrong. He did everything right.
Net result? The court terminated the father’s visitation rights, in their entirety, because the situation that the mother had created was “detrimental to the children’s welfare”
Clearly we each have different opinions on this issue. Your opinion is not fact, and neither is mine. It’s getting tiresome arguing with someone who is clearly just looking for an argument and to thread-shit.
Here you go again with your poor reading comprehension. I said “the parent paying child support can request an accounting.” Obviously that means "request [the court order] an accounting. Did you think I meant that a person can just ask on his own and make someone else comply? That’s just silly.
“Chil support.” Look at that phrase. Child. Support. Support for the child. It’s not called “Baby Momma & her boyfriend support.”
And yes, You better believe I am chapped that the money Greg provides for the benefit of his kids is going for this lowlife woman to support her lowlife boyfriend.
Wait, what? Rumor do you see the discrepancy here? You’re saying in one breath that Greg has no right to be upset that he is supporting someone else’s kids, and in another breath you say you’re “sure as fuck” not going to pay for someone else’s kids. Which is it?
And do you realize that we’re all (including you) supporting the younger 3 kids through welfare? Because Susan chose to procreate and not to make an income, and her husband chose to procreate then commit a crime and go to jail. Where’s your outrage there?
no, actually that statement you quoted is fact. sorry.
do you not understand the difference between discretionary and mandatory granting of a request? of course you don’t.
let me help you: when you say “a parent can request” you make it seem that the request is all that is needed to effectuate the request. like if I make a FOIA request. if I request (i.e. ask for one) of those, it has to be granted.
so it’s not actually silly. you’re either presenting in a biased manner, or your opinion on the matter is so biased that it renders your comprehension of things opaque.
Ok. so would your chappedness cease if momma turned around and said: you know that entire child support amount you pay? it goes to the rent to put a roof over your kids’ head, the electricity for their abode, and the water and sewer bill. i don’t spend a dime of my money on any of that, because, after all, providing housing for your kid is the apex of child support.
money’s fungible, and most household expenses aren’t apportion-able.
my last response may answer this for you, but this has completely crystallized in my mind what your error is here: money is fungible. every dime of greg’s support money is spent on the kids or paying for “community/family” items that the children need (and have no utility piecemeal) (a residence, transportation, car insurance, etc.) There’s no way it isn’t, because the overwhelming evidence is that single parents who are employed and not on welfare struggle to make ends meet even with routine, statutory child support amounts
Not so. With the money Greg’s kids get, there is enough for rent, utilities, transportation, food, clothing, etc. for there to be some amount left over. This is money that could go into any sort of benefit for the boys, such as a college fund, or toys, or lessons, or tutoring, or flying them to see Greg, but instead it is going to pay for the members of the household who have no income. Greg’s child support money is going to things OTHER than to supporting his children. The money is subsidizing non-working adults.
No, he is in prison and has no income. And when he gets out of prison he is unlikely to have any sort of substantial income because he will be a felon child sex offender. (Also has no education and paltry work history.) He also has another child from a prior marriage, who I assume is also not getting any support.
Again I’d like to know where is your outrage that your tax dollars are going to support these kids on welfare because their mom chooses not to work and their dad is a criminal? Because you did say that “sure as fuck am not going to pay for” kids not your own. Oh, and you’re also paying for this kiddy-diddler’s room and board. Does that bother you?
so if she goes and finds a place to rent that would occupy 100% of greg’s support amount, you wouldn’t have a problem?
No, I said i sure as fuck wasn’t going to pay for kids that werent my own when there was a parent available to hit up for money.
If pop is in prison, or unable to work because he’s got a felony rap, or disabled, or anything then we can start talking about my liberal noblesse oblige towards the kids. if not, pony up - there are plenty of destitute people who are in more dire need of my tax dollars.
So now that I’ve answered your hypos, let me ask one:
Dad pays X, non-custodial parent
Mom is broke, unemployable because she has a disability, doesn’t qualify for SSDI because she didn’t work the requisite number of quarters, and has custody (just roll with the custody decision). Ergo, mom has 0 income or welfare money that is payable to her and intended solely for her use (except for let’s say food stamps)
Dad pays child support.
Is it unethical if Mom derives any benefit whatsoever (i.e. receive an externality) from Dad’s payment of child support?
If no, reconcile the ethical behavior here with the claimed unethical behavior in your case
If yes, please explain how having a functioning mother who has some semblance of a life is not a 'benefit" to the child who she has the legal responsibility to take care of that would make her benefitting from the child support payment fit under the rubric of “child support” (i.e. money that is paid to support the child)
Your hypothetical is too far-fetched to answer seriously. If Mom was so disabled that she could not work, how is she going to be taking care of 6 children?
That aside, I think there are levels of “wrongness.”
If it were just Susan and Greg’s 3 kids, I probably would not have any problem with Susan benefiting from the child support in the form of housing, utilities, food. Now if she were going out buying expensive clothes, baubles, etc., that’s a problem.
It’s a bit more of a problem if it were Susan spreading out the child support over 6 kids. Susan and these kids’ father should be supporting them.
What is a flashing red alarm is that she’s got an unemployed dude living with her, who has no income. Clearly, the water he uses, the food he eats, the gas that get him places, the roof that is sheltering him, the heat that warms him, the TV he watches, the internet he surfs, even his phone bill (he has an iPhone), is free of charge for him. Even if most of this would have already been paid for by Susan anyway, things like food for a grown man, water, and phone bill are a substantial additional cost.
Also remember that this boyfriend has 3 other kids of his own. So your tax dollars are probably supporting these kids too. Out of the 10 kids in this scenario (Greg’s 3 bio kids, Mike the boyfriend’s 3 bio kids and criminal stepfather’s 4 bio kids) ONLY Greg’s 3 are being supported by their parents. And you have the nerve to sit here and demonize him?
You know, Rumor, it’s been really fun having this back and forth with you, but it’s grown tiresome. It’s clear you’re only in here to aggressively stoke an argument, and you’re not adding anything of value to the discussion. I am not clear what your strong interest in this topic is. Are you a parent? Why do you care so much? Actually please don’t answer that, because I am hoping that you’ll find some other thread to shit on and leave me alone.
Are you serious? Do you realize how many people are on social security disability who have children? Are you suggesting that they are not taking care of their kids?
Not any value? They have given you a lot of good information. You are simply too entrenched in your “GREG IS A VICTIM!” routine that you will not look at the information objectively.
Also, what a cop-out that you’re now insinuating that if **Rumor **doesn’t have kids their opinion doesn’t mean anything. Oh I know you didn’t say it but you sure imply it. If that’s the case then how good are your opinions? You have no children.
Or is this just nitpicky nonsense like asking about capitalization and apostrophes?
ETA: You’re seriously calling it threadshitting? After reading this thread and watching you ignore good advice I have to believe that your title should read SYMPATHY ONLY REQUESTED. You asked for advice. You simply want to remove any advice that doesn’t sing Greg’s praises.