I know a woman who always goes after her ex in court, and has gotten increased child support payments.
She spends NONE of it on her son, who she kicked out of the house for months but finally took back.
Rather, she spends it on her hair, nails, gifts for her new fiancé, and saves up for vacations for her and her fiancé and doesn’t take her son with her. She ADMITTED to doing all of this, with no shame.
Situations like this are not uncommon.
The question is, should someone who does this be penalized legally? If so how? Should they stop receiving child support and receive no other penalty, or should they be charged with some kind of fraud?
And I do NOT mean spending the money on rent, utilities, etc. which also benefit the child. I mean spending the money directly on yourself in a way that only benefits you, i.e. on drugs, hair, nails, on other people who are not your child, on vacation trips etc.
The money should be for the child. I think people who receive them should have to provide documentation of how that money is spent.
Keep in mind, however, that money is transferrable. You could be getting 500 a month in child support and spending 500 on your nails, hair etc. However, you are likely spending other money on housing, food, clothes for the kid, etc. Just because someone who gets child support spends money on themselves does not mean that they do not spend at least what they get in support on the kid.
That is true. However I am mainly referring to cases like the one I described where the child’s needs are neglected altogether and the child support spent on herself furthers the neglect. She even collected for a child who did not live with her.
“I know a woman who always goes after her ex in court, and has gotten increased child support payments”
Good for her! It’s a shame when this has to be done, but many men feel they are burdened by supporting their children.
For me posts like this are problematic. They are so plainly written with a prejudiced pen, it makes it hard for me to determine just how accurate the content is.
here I xcan only imagine the child has a job and buys food and clothing for himself as “NONE” of the child support is spent to support him.
Generally speaking the solution to a child not getting enough monetary support should not be to take all monetary support away. That would be punishing the child.
I’ve never understood the thought process behind this. If a parent is paying for housing, clothing, food, electricity, etc., how could they not be using child support on the child? Even if they literally take the child support check and spend those particular dollars on themselves, they are obviously then using their own money for the necessities that their child uses. It doesn’t really matter where the literal dollars come from- things are being paid for. And you may know one parent that has thrown their child out on the street and is keeping the child support for themselves, but I’m pretty sure that’s not a common scenario, considering that it’s felony abandonment to not provide housing to your minor child.
It would be great if it were possible, but it’s just not feasible for courts to determine that every single dollar of child support is spent properly every single month for every single child support obligation in America. Every single month every noncustodial parent would drag the custodial parent into court to challenge their accounting of the money, and the only way to determine who was right would be for the court to perform a complete audit of the parent’s finances every single month. Couple that with the fact that the child’s needs are going to vary from month to month, so it may be appropriate to spend less on the child in October and November so you can afford Christmas presents, or to save up for a vacation, or to save up in case the child gets sick, or to save for the child’s college education, and then couple that with nthe fact that it’s impossible to determine precisely how much of the food bill, rent, electricity, air freshener, dishwashing soap, and countless other intangiables goes to the benefit of the child, and you have no objective standard by which to govern whether or not money is being spent appropriately or not. It’s like trying to prove that you’re “good with money” - what does that even mean, and by whose standard? It would result in a nightmarish clogging up of the courts with endless audits that couldn’t be used to prove anything and simply couldn’t work. If custodial parent is so egregious in misspending funds in general that the child would be better served by living with the other parent, the appropriate remedy is for that parent to file for custody.
I think they should have to account for every penny spent — just as soon as the same is expected of still married couples, and not one minute sooner.
Unless you are willing to charge married people, who spend too little on their kids also, (in your considered opinion? Or as defined, where?) then this is a ridiculous idea. And unless you are willing to accept such scrutiny yourself, you should probably refrain from promoting such nonsense.
Because single Mom’s have so much time on their hands? What colour is the sky in your world?
I am in agreement with this. Soon I will be paying child support. I doubt the money will go directly to the kids and frankly it’s really none of my business.
She kicked him out and didn’t tell this when she went into court and her ex doesn’t know, so the courts still think he lives with her. She collects child support for a kid she kicked out.
Uh, I’m pretty sure nobody thinks parents should get child support for kids they’re not actually supporting and raising. That has zero to do with this issue in general.
How uninvolved is the father, that he has no idea where his son lives? And how messed up is he that she is still the best choice for custody? That poor kid…
Luckily for these parents, our legal system has a way for parents to retain control of these sorts of daily decisions. It’s called custody. In most states, joint custody is now the default and has been for a while. In all states, fathers can and do get joint and sole custody when it is the best situation for the child- and fathers are perfectly capable of establishing themselves as primary caregivers before any divorce takes place.
I am very sympathetic to fathers who fight for custody and face the sexism still found in our system. All fit, caring, stable parents should have the chance to be in their children’s lives.
I am not at all sympathetic to parents who choose to leave their kid in someone else’s hands, enjoy all the benefits of not having daily responsibility for a child, and then have the nerve to bitch about the absolute minimal investment of a government mandated check they make to their children’s well being.
And I am ESPECIALLY not impressed with parents who apparently are perfectly happy leaving their kids in neglectful, borderline abusive environments as long as its cheap.
I know someone in a similar situation, except she spends her child support money on her drug habit instead of her child. She also receives food stamps, then sells them at a discounted rate for cash and buys more drugs. It’s awful. Since she spent the money on drugs, someone eventually reported her to CPS. Sadly, I don’t think they took any real action. I know child support isn’t an entitlement, not in the generally recognized sense of the word. But when responsible parents turn over their money in expectation that it will go to help their child, I think the receiving parent should hold some accountability to prove the money is going to the welfare of the child, and not to drugs or personal frivolous use. If a parent paying child support suspects abuse of the funds, someone should audit that parent. If the parent is misusing the funds, then some action should be taken. Maybe have it work like a food stamp card, where the money can only be spent on certain things? Or turn in receipts and records monthly to an auditor? I’m just throwing out suggestions off the top of my head here, but bottom line is I think it’s abhorrent to spend your child’s money on your own personal interests in detriment to that child and the supportive parent. I think there should be some sort of penalty or action taken if proven concerns arise.
As an addendum to my original post, I don’t think something like an audit should take place every time a parent makes an accusation just to get back at an ex or something. If a parent rally is neglecting the well being of their child by failing to provide for them, send CPS out to determine the veracity of the claim. If they think the claim has merit, then proceed further. Otherwise I do agree the courts could be clogged up with endless and needless oversight.
I think that we all agree that parents shouldn’t neglect children, and CPS should investigate and protect if that’s what happening. Don’t really see what that has to do with child support, though.