The Child Support injustice.

[LusbyMom]

Originally Posted by struggler44

Could be bitterness or for all ex wives as when you read LM post it changes from "both mothers and fathers" to he, he, he, he the more she writes

I would say the majority is men. If you spent just one day in CS court you would see 1-2 women and the rest are men. Which is probably why I wrote more of the "he".

Their are deadbeat mothers AND fathers. And I would also say their are custodial parents who are deadbeats.

[LusbyMom]

Originally Posted by VoteJP

I have no objection to parents getting onto Public Assistance programs as that is their right as Maryland citizens, and I would be happy if any parent dropped of their babies with me whether it were my own child or not because I love kids.

And it is not really the custodial parents that go after the Child Support as it is the gov laws that attack the separated parents for the money.

I have nothing against the custodial parents except to point out that they live off of sinful stolen money called as Child Support.

It is okay and respectable if the custodials get Welfare and Public Assistance because that is NOT sinful or stealing as Welfare is their legal right as citizens.

Live off of it? Are you serious? How much child support were you ordered to pay?

[VoteJP]

Originally Posted by RoseRed

Did anyone ever ask him why he didn't take custody of his son so he wouldn't have to pay child support and would he have tried to collect it from his ex if he were able to succeed in that?

At that time I did not know about the realities involved in divorce or custody or about Child Support procedures.

At the time I thought my ex-wife and our extended families were the best environment to leave my son in, and I never ever even considered taking custody myself.

And even now today as I do know the ugly realities of the Child Support system then I surely would not wish that to be turned against my ex-wife as I do not like it being turned on anyone even when I do not know the families.

And I had no idea that my son would be so immature without his father raising him or else I would never had left him as I did. That was an awful mistake of mine and I did blow it for my son and for myself in that.

[LusbyMom]

Originally Posted by VoteJP

No, in reality the parents are just poor and one can not truly be guilty of any crime just based on being poor - and thereby too poor to pay the Child Support demands.

And it cost over $20,000. per year for each prisoner in jail, and for that amount we could give each of the parents a full time 40 hour week job at the minimum wage and have money left over. And if we did that then the Child Support could be deducted from the new job and income taxes paid too and each time it would be one less person in jail.

Note: I do not propose giving the parents such jobs but the irony still stands in that equation.

Instead we have Child Support laws that pillage and plunder the separated parents until the parents are dead-broke and then the law put the parents into prison for 3 or 5 years accordingly and it is an ignorant way to run a gov. And only ONLY poor parents go to jail.


Sure a parent can do that after they plead "GUILTY" to not paying the Child Support, which means the parents are guilty first and then the parents must try to prove their true innocence AFTER pleading guilty.

It is unAmerican and maybe some day it will be declared as unConstitutional as other challenges, link one HERE.


But that is just not real, and I know many people believe it is true that Child Support is to support the children but it is NOT.

Child Support is about "enforcing their right to support from both of their parents" which only means "Parenting Police". It talks hypocritically about "children" but it is only about controlling the parents.


The children all have everything they need and if any child lacks anything needed then it is ONLY because of the neglect or abuse by the custodial and NOT because of Child Support being paid or not paid.

And the custodial does have plenty of easy options to get anything the child(ren) needs to overflowing without getting any Child Support at all.

And the truest proof of all is that the poorest of poor families on Welfare have their Child Support payments confiscated by the State gov and that c/s payment is put into the State treasury - why? because the poorest of children already have everything they need to overflowing.


No parent really choses to not support their own children as that is just slander and not true.

But it is right and proper for any parent to chose not to pay a thief even when the thief is a gov Child Support collection.


There is a better option now, in that voting JP as Governor and then say "bye-bye" to the thieving Child Support system.

There are always options and better choices when one investigates.

You are insane

So you are saying that if a child doesn't have everything they need they are abused/neglected by the custodial parent? But the non custodial parent should just continue to choose to be poor?

[LusbyMom]

Originally Posted by VoteJP

No, you are talking about things before the parents go to Court and I am referring to when the parents are going to Court and facing 3 years State prison or 5 years Federal prison for failure to pay the Child support demands.

And I do know about the "contempt of their court order" which is handled by the Court-Masters and not by a real Judge, and I know about trying to push the parents into any kind of jobs, and if the parents had a job or any assets that the Child Support collection could steal then the parent will not go to jail because stealing the c/s money means the c/s has been paid.

Putting the parents into jail only happens when the parents have no more money to give or to be stolen.

Only ONLY only the parents that are dead-broke will go to jail.

Nope you are offered all of those things BEFORE a long prison sentence. The long prison sentence is for those who continue to play the system and use it. You get many chances to find a job and get help finding that job. Sounds like you would do anything to avoid supporting the child you created.

[VoteJP]

Originally Posted by Pete

And being financially supported by your biological parent is not a right?

What you are saying is that the child has a "right" to their parents' money and it is just not true.

In the not-so-old-days we use to call that circumstance as children under a "marriage" but not by today's laws.

In real-life if a parent is poor than the children are poor in accordance, and if the parents are rich then the children reap the benefits as the parents bestow them onto their own children.

The biggest billionaire Bill Gates has said that he is not going to give his children his big money as he is only giving his kids a pittance of the loot and he can do that because the children do NOT have any "right" to the parents' money.

And if a parent is poor or dead-broke then it is absurd to put the parents in jail like criminals to pay their children more than what their parents have. And included in that equation is that all the children already have every thing they need to overflowing.

So your claim sounds right but it is just belligerent.

[VoteJP]

Originally Posted by LusbyMom

So you are saying that if a child doesn't have everything they need they are abused/neglected by the custodial parent?

The custodials are usually employed or have some means of supporting them selves and if they do not then it is absurd to give child custody to a person or parent that is not capable to actually providing the custody.

That is what "custody" means is to provide everything the child needs.

And if the custodial is poor or underemployed or whatever then there are many resources including extended family and local Churches and gov Public Assistance, so there is no reason that any child does without any real need except for the neglect or abuse or incompetence of the custodial.

And when the custodial sees it as "unfair" then they have no business being given legal custody at all. I say give the custody to the parent with the money instead of taking the money and giving it to the custodial that fails to provide the custody.

Originally Posted by LusbyMom

But the non custodial parent should just continue to choose to be poor?

I do not accept the nonsense that any person (parent or otherwise) chooses to be poor.

But here in the USA the citizens are said to have freedom and if one wants to live a simple life or live wild then that is a normal human right and a person's free choice, and if poor parents have children then the children only get the life style that their poor parents give them.

It seems very inhuman to me to say that poor people can not have children unless they can afford a certain level of Child Support.

[LusbyMom]

Originally Posted by VoteJP

The custodials are usually employed or have some means of supporting them selves and if they do not then it is absurd to give child custody to a person or parent that is not capable to actually providing the custody.

That is what "custody" means is to provide everything the child needs.

And if the custodial is poor or underemployed or whatever then there are many resources including extended family and local Churches and gov Public Assistance, so there is no reason that any child does without any real need except for the neglect or abuse or incompetence of the custodial.

And when the custodial sees it as "unfair" then they have no business being given legal custody at all. I say give the custody to the parent with the money instead of taking the money and giving it to the custodial that fails to provide the custody.


I do not accept the nonsense that any person (parent or otherwise) chooses to be poor.

But here in the USA the citizens are said to have freedom and if one wants to live a simple life or live wild then that is a normal human right and a person's free choice, and if poor parents have children then the children only get the life style that their poor parents give them.

It seems very inhuman to me to say that poor people can not have children unless they can afford a certain level of Child Support.

So you want the CP to go to their extended family or churches instead of the other parent who helped create that child? Do you realize how absurd that is?

[Cletus_Vandam]

Originally Posted by VoteJP

What you are saying is that the child has a "right" to their parents' money and it is just not true.

Here are several facts that YOU ARE NOT GETTING!!!

FACT 1: When you fail to pay child support, you are being dragged back into court, not for failing to pay, but you are failing to comply with a court order.

FACT 2: Child support rates are based on State standards based on earnings by both parents. In the event the person paying support has a defined reduction in wages, he/she may request the courts to re-evaluate their case, in an effort to have their support adjusted.

FACT 3: With regard to the quote you made above... A child must be supported by his parents. I'm not sure why you believe that it is fair, reasonable, or expected that the State should support you child, when parents are able to support them. You can work, get off your duff and get one or two jobs to support yourself and YOUR KID!!!

[padowne]

OMG. First you denied paternity when you asked for a DNA test. Then you were ordered to pay a measley 300.00 a month. Then you asked for a modification to reduce the 10.00 a day you were ordered to pay. If 10.00 a day was too much for you to pay perhaps you should have filed for custody instead of attempting to deny paternity. Then you could have changed the diapers, stayed up all hours of the night with the child when he was ill and cleaned up the puke. Hey you would have even been allowed to pay for child care at 120.00 a week while you worked because I am sure you would have refused to take child support from the absent parent because it's such a travesty for her to have pay. Get over yourself and get a job!!