Child Support - A new Idea

A

allanh

New member
Wondering other folks opinion on this. There was thread on another board discussing SSN's on hunting lic. to find debeat dads. In thinking about this I think we should work for a law that ensures that child support money is used to support the children. I think the what ever percentage of a fathers income goes to child support, a like percentage of the mothers income should have to be devoted to the support of the child also. I would like to see legislation that in effect forces the parents to use child support money soley for the support of the child. House, food, clothing ect. I think the absent parent should have the right to have the other parents expenses audited and if it's found that the support is not being used to support the child, the absent parent can withhold the amount being used wrong and place those funds in a trust account the child can use for college or as a young adult.

I know of many cases where absent parents pay as much as $1500.00/month per child and then still have to pay for band or sports and/or buy there kids clothes. Why is there nothing to ensure that the custodial parent actually uses that money for the children and why is there nothing to ensure that both parents provide equall levels of support?

I would like to hear others thoughts. I realize this has little if anything to do with RKBA.

Allan
 
Its an ugly system, to be sure. No easy fixes, except we need to get young people used to the idea of birth control as a MUST for sex. It works in Indonesia and there's even a guy there known as Dr. Condom who promotes safe sex. Sounds goofy, but each kid that comes into this world to an unwed teenage mother costs taxpayers more than $20,000 from birth to age 18 (that was part of a newspaper story I read once in Idaho, where HALF of all kids are born to unwed mothers). A condom seems cheap by comparison.

I know, they shouldn't be doin' it anyway, but let's face it, we haven't been succesful at keeping young, hormone driven teens from procreating so far in human history, and nothing leads me to believe we can do it here in America now. The big difference of course is that in the past, "troubled teens" got married when they got pregnant. So much for that these days. I have a problem with safe sex being pushed in the schools, but I also have a problem with the taxpayer burden when these kids get pregnant. Ugly situation all the way around.

Here's the problem: A buddy of mine had the state (Idaho) garnish his wages to pay child support. The state took about 1/3 of what he made and gave his wife food stamps and some kind of subsidized housing. He was unable to get custody of his daughter through the courts. His ex took up with a real loser who lived in the subsidised housing my friend was essentially paying for, and she traded the food stamps to her mother for liqour and cigarettes. My friend still had to bring groceries to his daughter so she would have decent food to eat. Repeated complaints to the state fell on deaf ears. Then he found out Loser was eating the food he was bringing for the daughter. Loser ended up with some teeth broken out and he wasn't so pretty after that. He also saw fit to leave. Sounds drastic, but this is what my friend was pushed to.
 
On the other hand, I know/have known of too many deadbeat dads and too many divorced moms who can barely make ends meet. I'm talking about women who work 40+ hours a week, pay $100+ a week in child care so they can work, cover their kids medical, dental, clothing, housing, etc. costs and their own expenses, too. Then, when "daddy" wants to spend time with his kid, the law says he has a right to, whether he's paid a dime of child support or not. What can the courts do if they don't want to pay? They can either garnish their wages or, barring that, send them to jail so they can't pay, and so we'll be paying for them. And, if "daddy" gets mad and beats up his ex (like he did when they were married), the courts put him in jail for a little while - maybe - (again, no support for the kid) and turn him loose to do it again. What else can they do?

Or, here's one I know happened recently, to one of those divorced working moms who has never been in any trouble or taken any sort of gov't support - "daddy" (who hasn't been paying any child support for 6 months) picks up his 3-yr. old daughter for visitation (court says you have to let him see her, nonpayment is no excuse) and takes his daughter and his girlfriend out to Longhorn Steakhouse for dinner (remember, he has no money for child support, but a $40 steak for him, no problem). Well, he and "girlfriend" get into a big arguement, he calls his ex-wife to take their daughter back. Drops her off at his ex's, she notices he "doesn't look right" - that night he gets busted for a DUI & driving with a suspended liscence, and fighting with the officers (remember, he was driving with his daughter in the car earlier). Mom finds out later - from her 3-yr old daughter - that the arguement with his girlfriend started when she started popping pills...

Some people just don't give a rat's butt about anyone - even themselves. Jail's just a vacation to them.

That's not a work of fiction. I wish I could say that only men abuse the system, but I know there are abuses on both sides of the fence. Quite honestly, a kid is lucky to have one responsible parent to care for them, much less two. There aren't even words to use to tell my parents how grateful I am that they were both there for me.

I disagree with you about one thing - if the child support money isn't going to reasonable household expenses (some of them are hard to say they are directly child-related, like how much of the mortgage, gas, & electricity are the child's share), the other parent should have to care for the child, and the current caregiver should be paying child support. Sticking money in trust fund doesn't solve the problem, or provide the kid with better care. Of course, some people might think $1,500 a month is expensive until they have to give up coming and going as they please to care for their child, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week...

Alternately, I think there should be some way to make deadbeat parents (notice I didn't say dads) pay their child support, even if it's digging ditches on a chain gang.
 
Dave, I'm not saying dead beat parents should not be held to support there children. What I'm saying is that MOST absent parents do pay there support, and allot of those feel that there ex use's part of that money for things other than support of the child. For every case you cited of a dead beat parent, I can tell you of custodial parents abusing the system also. What I'm talking about is a system that has some form of a check and balance. I realize that thats not how any of our current system works. I lets say I can prove legally that my ex wife is not useing the money I pay her for the care of my daughter I should have recourse. The recourse I would like to see is put part of that money away so that my daughter has it later in life when it could help her. BTW $1500.00/month per child is the norm in Kalifornia for Professional Fathers to have to pay for child supprt. I know af a father that has 3 children and has to pay $2500.00/month on top of that he pay $1500.00 in alimony. I also know that most divorce lawyers in this state will try to inflate child support and have lower alimony. That way the custodial parent has a higher income for a longer period of time. The system like most others is broke.
 
Allanh, I hope I didn't offend you, I admit I used this topic to vent about something very personal to me. I'll tell you the whole story if you want to hear it, via e-mail (I'll be away from my home email for a few days, though & it's a long story). I understand your position, I think, and I sympathize with you, my first concern is always what's best for the child.

$1500 a month? Are you sure? A person making about $30,000 a year takes home under $2,000 a month. What does child care cost in California? Here, day care is about $500 a month. Child support in Ga. is based on a percentage of the non-custodial parents gross income (about 20-30%, I think). Which opens up another avenue of abuse - the non-custodial parent quits their job before the court hearing. It's done quite often.

Now, taking child support money and blowing it on beer and food for a live-in boyfriend is definitely abuse, too, but using it to provide a better home for the child isn't. Most other things are going to fall into a gray area, I think. Maybe the alternative is some sort of spending account, but I still think that's a poor substitute for having the more responsible parent taking custody.

Divorce & alimony/child support is an agreement. In my opinion, abusing the agreement breaks it, but if the reliable/responsible parent doesn't hire a lawyer and go after custody, what is the court able to do?

There are abusers on both sides of the fence, I'm sure. I've just seen it up close from the other side most recently, and more often....

[This message has been edited by Danger Dave (edited September 24, 1999).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top