If you’re implying that my former husband was an asshole, I should mention that he never made more than $45,000 in the 16 years we were married, and was making significantly less when he divorced his ex. She, on the other hand, was the primary breadwinner- and ended up being granted a balloon payment (scheduled to be paid alongside the last child support payment) that was supposed to cover a reversal of her tubal ligation (which she did during the c-section that nearly killed her, at the emphatic recommendation of her doctor).
So the person making less money, who had custody 50% of the time and 50% of the bills, was supposed to give additional money for… what, exactly? Would a woman have been put in that situation?
What if you *can’t *pay? I have the impression that this is pretty common. Child support is a bunch of money, and full time jobs are hard to come by for a lot of men in recent years, and once someone pay taxes and rent and food and everything else there may not be enough money left. There’s certain inefficiencies from living by yourself instead of with the mother.
I hear all the time about judges jailing people or threatening to jail people, or writing them up for unpaid child support such that there is now a record that employers can access stating they are a deadbeat, which means the father has even more difficulty paying (since they can’t get as good of a job since they lost time in jail), which means…
Frankly, that whole thing sounds like a scam. Child support should just be a system where every father on the list gets their wages garnished, and the mother gets the payments from the government, not the father, so payments aren’t interrupted if the father loses his job/can’t pay this month. Nobody benefits if the father is jailed for not being able to pay, and the mother can’t buy infant formula this month. Children need regular support or they don’t grow right, and it doesn’t help if the father pays up the backlog a year later. The government would be legally authorized to choose a “garnishment percentage” that would recover the government’s costs, and there would be different tiers of child support and different tiers of garnishment.
I know a guy who was legally separated from his wife while they were working on getting divorced. Papers had been filed, but court backlogs & various lawyerly delaying tactics had stalled progress.
She became pregnant, and not by him. When the child was born she came after him for child support as the legal father. Despite a rather significant difference in the race of half the child vs. that of my friend.
In the relevant US state at that time the law was clear: the child was his and he had to pay. And he did so for 20 years. The divorce was finalized a couple years into his 20 year sentence of paying for two other folks’ kid.
My ex didn’t pay for a very long time because he was “too poor.” While I know he wasn’t rolling in the dough, he wasn’t as bad off as he pretended to be and made very bad decisions with his finances. I don’t know why he chose to stop paying for the kid before … say… cable… but that was the logic.
But if you can’t pay, the solution is to go to court and beg for mercy, extensions, a break. Not just cut off the cash for months, years on end.
In my experience, most men who didn’t pay felt they didn’t have to because the laws used to be different and more lenient. So not paying for your kid in the 80s wasn’t like today, where liens and license suspensions and arrests happen. My father wasn’t ordered to pay support so he didn’t. Nowadays that would be very unlikely, as I think a support agreement is mandatory across most or all of the US.
My cousin lives in a state where child support is decided on the amount of money the non-custodial parent is expected to make - not what he makes. My cousin was determined to owe $2000.00 a month in child support - he did not make that much money. He left the state to make more money, but also to avoid being placed in jail until he could catch up his child support. He is still paying child support to the mother, although the children are both over 18 - he must make up all back pay and interest. He will still be paying child support when he is retired.
[Quote=CCitizen]
I never had kids, so I am not a child support deadbeat.
[/quote]
Yeah, that should convince posters you’re willing to listen to them. :rolleyes:
Well if you don’t want people to assume the guy’s an asshole, you might not want to leave pertinent info out of the story. Otherwise, he’s just an asshole hiding income to get out of paying childcare. Actually it still sounds like he is. He agreed to pay a percentage of his income in child support, but then broke the law to get out of it.
Child support isn’t supposed to come from the money you have “left.” Your child had no choice about whether to come into the world. YOU made that call. IF there is money left, you can buy food for yourself and pay rent.
Sure, but the point is, sometimes the payments can be so high that the other parent could have difficulty remaining financially solvent. That’s not in anyone’s best interest.
I have the opposite of an axe to grind on this: my biological father was a well-off guy who managed to deadbeat his way around paying almost anything. And I have no children of my own.
But fair is fair.
Because a person who legitimately is unable to pay child child support will not be sent to jail. In fact, can you cite a documented case of an individual who is jailed for nonpayment of child support even though he “physically” did not have the money? I understand you have an ax to grind with the legal system (based on your other posts), but the law is not designed to screw people like you suggest. State laws generally prohibit the garnishment of wages beyond a certain percentage of a person’s income, so the situation you’re suggesting is highly unlikely, if not impossible. Are people placed in hardship at times? Of course – but your premise is wrong and not helpful to this thread.
The kids. Both have degrees and only occasionally beg for money for necessaries of life, you know, like a $1000 dog. That got a “go to the shelter and pick out a less expensive one” from me.
In California the support obligation is owed the kids. If you owe $1000 a month, and you get fired, get in an accident, whatever, the $1000 is still owed and accumulates. The theory is the kids still need clothing, food and shelter regardless. This debt continues to accrue and is not dischargable. You have two choices, go back to court for a modification or start paying. 0 income DOES NOT EQUAL 0 Child support.
The law and fairness are often entirely different things. In any case, the law can demand infinite monies from anyone it wants, but whether or not they can pay is an entirely different story.