reposting full POST… something happened??/
I have a question… how do the courts determine if a parent in UNABLE to pay? Their word? What proof is required to show inability to earn income?
I ask this because … drumroll… I have a deadbeat EX who has been goofing off for the last couple years - playing like a college kids (he’s 42) and basically threw his reputation as a State Certified General Contractor down the drain… his former well know business is now anything but reputable in our smallish community of snowbirds. Therefore he 'can’t find work’ - so he says. He has been court ordered to pay child support for our two children in the amount of $800 ish per month… so far since Oct. 2011 he has been late for every payment by weeks if not well into the next month then in May he stopped all together until late in June and he has made 4 - $100 payments (with our settlement in the divorce + child support = it’s about $1000 per month). So as of right now he is $2600 in the rears… and paying approx $100 per week “when he can”
I am waiting for a court date… ex has taken a job as a carpenter - which he is WAY over qualified for and doubt he makes much over minimum wage and ironically the company he works fors owner holds the SAME license he does. (and can find work). I guess my question is will the judge consider him underemployed when he cries he can’t pay his current support amount?
I don’t want to hear from anyone about deadbeat mothers… while I know they exisit it is not relevant in my case. My children see their father on every visitation HE is available… I have NEVER kept them from him and won’t. He is playing games with the courts to avoid his financial responsibility as a father… I do my part 100% of the time - but I can’t afford to support them 100% on my own and he knows this. I work and always have - make an OK salary but it’s not enough to support my children the way they have been raised (nice home, food, clothing, etc) - we were married for 18 years and the girls are 11/12 now. He supported them well at first - when we separated … but went through some mental crisis and began playing way more than working, doing crappy work, and of course dating a 20 year old doesn’t help… remember he’s 42 … do the courts ‘see through’ the guys who pull this crap? He can’t be the first!
In every state I’ve ever heard of, The system allows for child support modifications due to changed circumstances. My BIL, for example, worked on commission selling mortgages. His ex got child support increased when she got wind of how well he was doing during the housing boom. And he, in turn, got it modified downward again when the housing market crashed. No lawyers were involved. (I do believe he hasn’t finished paying off his arrears yet, but he acknowledges his responsibility for that, and the reasons why he hasn’t are a rant for another day.)
Not sure what you are getting at. If the guy genuinely does NOT have the money, how would the court make him pay?
If you want the court to decide that he does not have mental problems, that he is faking being an irresponsible adolescent instead of a staid, hardworking member of the community… well I suppose (IANAL) there is a limit to what a court can do. If he is determined to screw up his life so you don;t get money, then I guess you’re in the same boat as those mothers whose ex lives on skid row, or committed suicide. (Basically, he’s committed economic suicide).
As mentioned a few posts up by Muffin:
OTOH, if someone is determined not to earn that money, the court can either say “we’re tallying up a number that you will never pay” or recognize reality and say “you earned $X, barely above minimum wage, this is the amount someone earning that little has to pay.”
He also may have genuinely sunk into a despair and stopped caring about work and making money. Some people do have problem for a midlife crisis, what’s the Billy Joel song, “quit his job, sold it all and moved to the west coast, now he does standup routines in LA…”
So lets ask the real lawyers if they return to this thread, can the court actually slap someone across the face and order “snap out of it and go back to work”?
My wife used to manage a fast-food joint, and the problem she found was that there was no end to the number of people who, even if they honestly applied for and took a job, were incapable of meeting the employer’s expectations in one way or another - attendance, punctuality, dress code, anger management or politeness, adherence to procedures, just plain energy…
If this guy’s burned his bridges as a contractor in the small town, nobody’s going to wave a magic wand or court order and suddenly make him a high earner again, even if he wanted to, which it appears he doesn’t.
By the time he’s $12,000 in arrears, a whole year - what are the odds he’s enthusiastic to make some money just so he can satisfy you and the court?
IANAL. But my understandings of family court are that (1) you do not need a lawyer to file, and (2) family court is where this is always handled.
If you have noncompliance of court-ordered support, you are supposed to take it to family court. The judges there have heard it all, so your story is no surprise, and your ex is not playing a game that hasn’t been tried before.
The court’s stand is that your ex created the children, and he OWES them support. No excuse of his is valid enough to absolve him of his responsibility.
If he files tax returns, his refunds will evaporate.
He can lose his driver’s license.
And the arrears will not go away, UNLESS you sign a waiver.
The direction he’s headed, your children will be receiving money from him well after they turn 21. If he wants to “play the game” of only paying $100 a week, then he will be so in the hole he’ll have to pay $100 a week long after he’s joined AARP.
His little girlfriend might think it’s cute and funny to be ducking around, hiding money and “getting over,” but if SHE winds up pregnant, the fun will stop, because she will want HER child to be supported.
And the courts give priority to the older children.
Thank you for your replies. I finally have a court date 7/24 !!
My biggest issue is that he has chosen to ‘goof off’ vs. be responsible which has resulted in a dramatic decrease in his earnings. I feel - 100% he has done this ON PUPOSE to try and get sympathy from the courts to lower his child support. He has made good money over the years - when we were married - sometimes 6 digits … and now he’s working as a carpenter for min wage. The ‘toy’ collection he has does not represent someone earning min wage (boats, race cars, motorcycles, guns, etc) all of which are paid for of course. I know he does work under the table (side jobs) and makes $ that way but of course i have no way to prove any of that. It’s just so frustrating that a father - who claims he wants the best for his kids - does this. They can do nothing extracurricular because I can’t afford it - he is suppose to pay half of that … I can’t get braces for them … because I know he won’t pay his share … and I can’t afford it.
I used my lawyer for this in hopes of getting in court quicker and making sure all my ducks were in a row… he knows I can’t pay him at the moment and is working with me on that … I paid him dearly for the divorce.
I want the courts to make him look like the fool he is … not go soft on him … and say well you just keep doing your best. My kids deserve better - I would have never had children with a worthless deadbeat which is what he has become. My biggest issue is that he is capable of making decent money and refuses too… and I want the courts to recognize this and NOT lower his support. I will never stop fighting for my kids to have what they deserve.
The trouble is, if that is all he’s earning, that is all he should / has to pay.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it think; sometimes you can’t even beat good behaviour into it with a 2x4. The law says that he has to share what he earns, not that he must earn more and more and more… the law does not “make” anyone work 16 hours a day, 6 days a week either, so why would it force 8 hours and 5 days? At a certain point, why would he work harder to give you more? Especially once he’s in arrears and more earnings means he still does not get more take-home.
I guess the next question is, if he gets into serious arrears, can you take his toys to pay for money owed (and legal fees?) That would be more of a reinforcement of the learning experience. Can you spring that on him quickly so he has no time to hide or sell them? Your lawyer might enjoy that remunerative challenge…
In practice, I have found that providing proof of what the person had been earning, or if that information is not available, then providing solid stats for what a person in the same trade for the same number of years would earn satisfies the judges around here. Of course if the payor can come up with proof that the under-employment was through no fault of his/her own, the court will not impute income.
So what is the procedure if a person goes forward with the strategy of economic suicide? (“underemployment”) If someone is determined to cancel their life just to spite the other person, then I suppose the court cannot make them work… you can’t get blood from a turnip. Spend time sending them to jail for contempt, then out, then back in? Penalize them every time they fail to do brilliant in a job interview? (Would you hire someone who says “the court ordered me to apply for this position”?)
At a certain point, when the person is too far in the hole, what’s the point in trying to get out? If you owe, say, $25,000 then there’s no incentive to try to fix it. It will be years before you have any disposable income, before you get you driver’s license back; especially if the courtdrags on and refuses to backdate lower payments… why try to recover?
And then, at a certain point, he could maybe claim clinical depression as a reason to not work.
You can impute all the moeny you want, if the guy has none, he has none. Either jail him for contempt or stop imputing income…
Generally, people who have had money tend to LIKE the lifestyle that goes with it. It’s a rare person who would deliberately become a pauper just for spite.
A deadbeat parent who has once enjoyed a middle-class income may resort to creative bookkeeping or any number of cheats to hide money from child support. Child support enforcement has gotten a helluva lot smarter, and the usual tricks (moving out of state, putting possessions in a girlfriend’s name, getting paid in cash, etc etc) don’t work as well as they used to.
A person who manages to purchase (by whatever means) a $50,000 truck should absolutely be responsible for an arrears of $25,000.
Unless the deadbeat parent has sugar daddy or sugar momma with unlimited wealth, holding the driver’s license hostage and confiscating the wheels can promote compliance.
~VOW
In my jurisdiction, the deadbeats’ wages are garnished at 50%, tax refunds and almost all assets are seized, passports, driver’s licences, and other government issued licences are cancelled and seized, bankuptcy does not relieve them of the support debt (and judges are usually willing to deem court costs as incidents of support), and contempt orders tossing their asses in jail are made over and over again, with the government taking care of the collection and enforcement at no cost to the recipient. In short, the deadbeat ends up living on the street, with frequent stays in the district jail. If there is a good reason, arrears may be rescinded, however, deliberately being under or unemployed is not one of them.
How often does a person chose to live on the street and frequently be jailed just to avoid paying support, when the alternative is to pay support and have reduced but otherwise good standard of living? Vanishingly rare. When relationships fail and the primary breadwinner realizes that he/she is on the hook for child and or spousal support, it is very common for the payor to rant about how he or she will simply stop working, or sneak illegally into a country with which we do not have a reciprocity agreement, but despite the tantrums, they almost always end up paying rather than face a life on the streets.
In my own practice, I’ve only come across two who have preferred to stay on the streets, and the courts continue to squish them like bugs, such that no, they will never dig themselves out. The court’s logic in this makes sense. If a deadbeat insists on being a deadbeat at all costs, then the recipient is out of luck, for you can’t get blood from a stone, but at the same time, by tightening the screws on the deadbeat until the deadbeat’s life is irrevocably destroyed, it sends a very strong signal to potential deadbeats to abandon all hope of evading paying support short of living on the street.
In some jurisdictions it’s not just contempt, it can be a felony with serious jail time. This Mississippi guy got 5 years (8 months actually in prison and the rest under supervision) over $25,000. These guys in Cleveland could have gotten up to a year in jail but decided to pay up after being indicted.
the second -
Some cough up $10,000 or more - obviously not committing real underemployment.
Others are ordered to pay about $100 to $200 a month. Either they are deliberately underemployed or that is the extent of their earning potential.
I assume they are also under orders to report any significant increase in income?
My question was, if a person decides to deliberately underemploy themselves, other than threatening them with jail, what can or will the court do? And if they do jail them, can they “order” someone to get a $60,000 a year job instead of working at McDonald’s? Will they take someone who has a real but low-paying job and toss them in jail? Will the court eventually agree that that is the limit of the person’s earning potential for now?
I assume the “psychiatrist says he’s too <fill in disease here> to work” would usually get minimal sympathy if it happens in the middle of one of these typically nasty situations…?
I don’t know, never been close to this situation, but I assume that some people would appreciate a “goof off” easygoing lifestyle over slaving in a job to earn a ton of money to send most to someone else.
Old post I’m responding too, but you have the absolute worst attitude and I have to say, one that causes more problems than it could ever solve in our family law court system.
First, chuckling at other people’s misfortune because they’re all “deadbeats” right? God help you when you get a DUI someday, or sober accidentally hit a kid on a street and are charged with manslaughter, or some other thing that lands you in court as the “bad guy”.
Your years of saying “heh. shake that money tree!!” at the expense of others will come back to haunt you. Who will be there to give a balanced view of your case??
I’m not going to give a disclaimer that I’m defending “deadbeats”…you were obviously judge and jury as you “picked the worst of the lot”. Some were willful, some just have life struggles. But your attitude is so common among people who think they will never land in front of a criminal judge. Just wait till that day. You will wish you never laughed at the guys “falling over themselves” after you used another guy just to set an example to the others.
Absolutely incredible you can look in the mirror each day.
It was my first law job. I was good at it. Saved/recovered taxpayer dollars by enforcing court ordered support obligations, establishing paternity, and in some small way making life better for children and custodial parents in the process. I don’t have any regrets about those cases.
Don’t have any children, but my observation is that nowadays, most non-payers were never married to the custodial parent, and the ones who just plain old don’t pay, or pay just enough to stay out of jail, generally don’t pay any of their other bills either.
I personally know several women (and possibly a man) who are now getting half of their ex’s Social Security checks, because s/he finally had some income to get attached in the first place. The men “supported” themselves by finding women stupid enough to let him live with (and usually abuse) them. And honestly, in a lot of cases the CP wasn’t any better. :rolleyes:
Parents (usually mothers) who lost custody because they blocked the NCP from seeing the kids generally did other things too, like accusing him of abuse when there was no evidence and the kids themselves denied it. You do have to remember that there are quite a few families where the kids don’t want to see the NCP, but are forced to do so by the courts. This can be really hard to prove.
You do have to keep in mind that in a HUGE percentage, if not the outright majority, of divorces that involve children, he wasn’t interested in the kids, except maybe as sex trophies, showed no interest in them unless he had an audience (and sometimes not even then), didn’t support them even if he was working, and that’s a major reason, if not THE reason, why the marriage failed.
If the kids are preschoolers, IMNSHO that’s almost always the case.
There are plenty of two-parent families where a mother makes a really big decision regarding a child without consulting her husband first.
And really, could you imagine what would happen in most families if a father DID take his children shopping for clothing or school supplies (and not just the fun things, either), sign them up for an activity on his own, and if he suggested that a child might have a learning, behavior, or health problem, her reaction will likely be, “And if she does, it will be your fault because you don’t take proper care of her.”
I used to believe that if a NCP remarried and the spouse was employed, that the support payments should increase accordingly, and that a spouse’s income could potentially be attached if the NCP was in arrears.
Was it ever that way? I do remember hearing stories about that in the 1970s when I was a kid.
