Deadbeat Dads: Jail or Vasectomy

[Nickel]

Originally posted by Club'nBabySeals
No, I don't---and thank goodness for that!

You undoubtedly have a lot more experience with this than I do, but I also came from the other end of the spectrum---Lived with Mom for 18 years, while Dad paid CS...and although the expenses went up a bit as I got older, I can clearly remember my mother (whom I love and respect; don't get me wrong) dipping into the monthly CS fund for all the various odds and ends that go into raising a kid in the early 80's...and then having enough left over from the fund (all of which was contributed by my father) to go out and buy herself a set of D-cups, or a new purse, or what have you. I'm sure a lot of things have changed since then (I certainly HOPE they have), but that sort of thing tends to flavor one's view of things.

My main point in bringing up the aforementioned example was the difference in lifestyle achievable by both the mother and the father. I wholeheartedly agree with you that no parent should EVER have any qualms about providing the necessities for their child (although unfortunately this is apparently not the case in many situations). I do, however, think that when two parents who earn approximately the same income are supporting a mutual child---and one is living like a pauper while the other is galavanting to Disneyworld every 6 months---there is some flaw in the system.

I was not aware--Thank you for the link! I input my information and that's enough to tell me that I never EVER want to pay child support. I suppose the best sterilization is a kick in the wallet.

It IS about the child---but Mom and Dad have to live, too.

Good rebuttal

I think it's fairly obvious that in a perfect world, it would be 50/50, unfortunately it's not. My son's father and I make about the same amount, and he's court ordered to pay $396/month. As I stated earlier, that doesn't even begin to cover the expense of raising a 2 year old. He doesn't even pay the court ordered amount, but that's another issue.

Unfortunately it's hard to generalize this issue. Like you said, your mom (to loosely define it) took advantage of the situation. On the other hand, my father accused my mother of using "his" money to pay her car payment. Also, it's hard to judge, because usually a spouse's income can't be taken into consideration. So essentially my son's dad could marry a multi-millionaire (if he could find one stupid enough ), and still only be responsible for $396. I'm sure there are ways around it if the circumstances are that extreme, but essentially that's how it goes.

My words may seem a little harsh sometimes, but I have no sympathy for mothers and fathers who use their children as pawns. Back in the day, before he wised up, my dad tried to use us against our mom. Good thing she was too smart for that

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by Club'nBabySeals
I can clearly remember my mother (whom I love and respect; don't get me wrong) dipping into the monthly CS fund for all the various odds and ends that go into raising a kid in the early 80's...and then having enough left over from the fund (all of which was contributed by my father) to go out and buy herself a set of D-cups, or a new purse, or what have you.

Oops! A sore spot!

My ex used to pull that crap about why did he have to pay so much in CS ($400 a month LESS than what the formula said he should pay, btw) when I always seemed to have money for ski equipment or vacations. First of all, the kids always went on "vacations" with me - to my Mom's, and she bought. The ski equipment was a gift and my Dad bought my new tires for my birthday.

Things aren't always what they seem, Clubn. Not only that, but what did your Dad pay your Mom to ALWAYS be the one taking off work with a sick kid? How did he compensate her for being available to you 24/7 so that he could have a single life?

One more thing: even though I made a good $20K less a year than my ex AND he had his wife's secondary income, I had the money to do fun things while they were living paycheck to paycheck. Why? Because I didn't blow my money on $1000 leather jackets and a $5000 living room suite. I wasn't going out to dinner every night nor was I wearing $200 designer pants.

Again, things aren't always what they seem. I think a purse is small compensation for your Mom raising you alone.

 

[Club'nBabySeals]

Hello Vrai. Sorry you had such a rough go at it with your ex.

The fact of the matter is, though, that the situation my parents were in when I was growing up is not sounding at all like the one you describe.

For instance, my father worked closer to my school than my mother did back in the day, so it was HE who would come and get me when I got sick, or--on occasion--when I got into trouble! This was simply a matter of logistics, seeing as it was a 15 minute drive for him, and a 45 minute one for mom...and I assure you, it wasn't Dad out living up the "single life". He's lived alone with a dog (and I'm not talking the kind you pick up in a bar) since the day he and my mother separated. In fact, I usually spent more nights a week over at his house than at my mother's (even though she had legal custody of me) because SHE was out making the rounds (she eventually went on to re-marry 3 times).

I do not pretend to know the inner workings of either of my parent's minds; but I can say with certainty that my father never once complained about the money or what my mother did with it to me. The court ordered him to pay an amount, and he did so without fail for almost 18 years. I have a tremendous amount of respect for ANY man that will do that...especially as it becomes more apparent that he was a rare breed. I also respect the fact that my mother managed to raise me into a healthy, self sufficient adult. My point though, is that she didn't do it alone, and arguably, did not put in her fair share of time, money, or effort. Raising a child--whether it be as a couple or separated--should be a joint effort in all respects. I admittedly hold a bit of a grudge concerning the scenario in which I grew up, but it's all sour grapes as they say. It would have been nice had my mother put away any excess CS into a college fund instead of turning it into her personal allowance. Might have saved me from some of the College loan debt which I'll be paying back for the rest of my natural life (and beyond).

Maybe I'm a bit backwards, but I believe that child support is for the benefit of the child--not the parent.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by Club'nBabySeals
The fact of the matter is, though, that the situation my parents were in when I was growing up is not sounding at all like the one you describe.

Alright - I hear ya. I'm just feeling defensive because the ex and I are having "those discussions" again. I love my kids but there are times I'm REALLY sorry I picked their Dad to have them with.

I like to think it all comes out in the wash. Like your Dad - there might have been times that he thought he was getting screwed. But now that you're an adult, he's getting his reward for biting his tongue when you were a kid, ya know?

I wouldn't trade my life for my ex's for any amount of money and that's what it all boils down to, for me.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by Nickel
..... Also, it's hard to judge, because usually a spouse's income can't be taken into consideration. So essentially my son's dad could marry a multi-millionaire (if he could find one stupid enough ), and still only be responsible for $396.

I think you are wrong here. Maryland law indicates that the "actual income" used to determine the obligation is "income from any source" (from Maryland Code, Family Law, § 12-201. Definitions}. So if either parent remarries then it seems reasonable that the computation to determine the amount of support can be re-examined and the award adjusted.

Another source (lectlaw.com) had the following question:

I think our existing child support order is unfair. How can I change it?

A portion of the response was this: " permanent modification may be awarded under one of the following circumstances:

* either parent receives additional income from remarriage
* changes in the child support laws
* job change of either parent
* cost of living increase
* disability of either parent, or
* needs of the child.

 

[willie]

Originally posted by Ken King
I think you are wrong here. Maryland law indicates that the "actual income" used to determine the obligation is "income from any source" (from Maryland Code, Family Law, § 12-201. Definitions}. So if either parent remarries then it seems reasonable that the computation to determine the amount of support can be re-examined and the award adjusted.

Another source (lectlaw.com) had the following question:

I think our existing child support order is unfair. How can I change it?

A portion of the response was this: " permanent modification may be awarded under one of the following circumstances:

* either parent receives additional income from remarriage
* changes in the child support laws
* job change of either parent
* cost of living increase
* disability of either parent, or
* needs of the child.

The law is reasonable, it's the enforcement that sucks. Anyone involved in a contentious custody hearing without a Lawyer is a fool. A lot of self study on current rates/law is a must also. It's amazing to hear the interpretation of the law that some of these deadbeats come up with, most of it learned from fellow deadbeats at the local bar(pun intended).

 

[Nickel]

Originally posted by Ken King
I think you are wrong here.

Surprise, surprise



I said usually they don't take spouse's income into account, not never. I've actually worked through the CS dept on this exact issue. My son's father is married, and her income is not up for grabs. I don't complain, though, because she didn't father my child, she shouldn't be responsible for contributing to his well-being. Just because it's on the books doesn't mean it's enforced. My son's father has never been penalized for not paying support up until a month ago, when they suspended his license. Theoretically, he has been defying a court order for about 2 years, he should have at least a few days behind bars, but they try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. Each county seems to mold the rules to fit their needs.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by Nickel
Surprise, surprise



I said usually they don't take spouse's income into account, not never. I've actually worked through the CS dept on this exact issue. My son's father is married, and her income is not up for grabs. I don't complain, though, because she didn't father my child, she shouldn't be responsible for contributing to his well-being. Just because it's on the books doesn't mean it's enforced. My son's father has never been penalized for not paying support up until a month ago, when they suspended his license. Theoretically, he has been defying a court order for about 2 years, he should have at least a few days behind bars, but they try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. Each county seems to mold the rules to fit their needs.

No surprise, all I did was post what the law states, actual income is from all sources and it can be sufficient justification for modification of the amount of support which differd with what you were saying. The law doesn’t specifically exclude the new spouse’s income so it looks to be fair game, which could be of benefit to your child since, as you have indicated, he isn’t getting all of what he is due from his Dad.

I will clarify that this is all premised on the concept that the ex-husband has gained benefit from the new wife’s income. If they file taxes separately and haven't jointly purchased items then that could show that he does not directly benefit from what his new wife earns. I don't know their circumstances and won't speculate further, but it seems unlikely to me that he is not benefiting from her salary. I know that I benefited greatly from my new wife’s salary when I got remarried. But for me, with regard to your ex, it seems reasonable that his overall financial situation has improved (by including her salary in his household) and the child receiving the support should benefit too. Isn't that the intent of support to provide for the child and as such I think he should reap some of Pops prosperity?

You are right that enforcement is lax and the judges are allowed to deviate from the standard and that sucks. Maybe that provision where the amount can be adjusted due to unique or specific circumstances needs to be removed from the current law and make it an across the board standard.

I am truly frustrated to hear about situations like yours when a person will not fully comply with their support obligation and I think the Fed, state, and county should all be hounding his every movement in an effort to make him pay what the child is due and more now since he has remarried and improved his situation.
Not to get too personal, but have you requested a garnishment or are you getting by enough on your own to simply write off what your child is due? Have you checked into seizing or attaching his assets (that is if there are any)? They do it to people that grow or sell drugs on their property, why not start doing the same when they don’t live up to the obligation of their own flesh and blood? At least get a judgment against him on the amount in arrears.

Who knows, it might turn into a nice college fund one day if he ever wants to refinance or buy a home. Good luck, but don’t just give up on it, you need to make him take care of his child. As the custodial parent I feel that you are obligated to get whatever your son is entitled to no matter how unpleasant or how big of a hassle it can be for you.