Child support imperiled: More jobless parents seek break from c...

A few seconds of euphoria in exchange for a near lifetime of pain. No thanks!

This is a very real problem. My husband, who lost his job last fall, is paying 40% of his unemployment benefits in child support for an 18-year-old daughter who no longer lives with her mother. The mother continues to collect child support on her daughter, who lives on her own and has a full time job. Court hearings to address this have run into an endless cycle of continuances and delays, each time adding to our legal expenses. In the meantime, our family of four is living on food stamps, charity, and the remains of the unemployment check. By contrast, my ex-husband never paid child support for our children, but simply left town, with no consequences. There are countless situations like these, where the law is letting families down. The current legal system, in regards to child support and alimony, has numerous flaws, and needs a drastic overhaul.

Sorry, parents. You took on this responsibility when you got married and had sex (or just had sex without the marriage). Cut out the extras (cable, coffee, pets, vacations, etc) and man up. Your kids' needs now come before yours.

Yes, this is an abused system for sure. One household, theoretically, gets a major boost (custodial parent), while the other is shredded, even in good economic times. Usually, it seems, this is against the wishes of the non-custodial parent (meaning they were forced to be the non-custodial parent). It's modern day slavery.

It wouldn't be so bad if it was actually child support. But instead, it is a blank check to an ex-spouse, someone who is an ex for a reason.

"Your kids' needs now come before yours. "

correction: your ex's needs are now legally valued higher than yours.

undirected funds = not child support. That's alimony.

This story proves that it's cheaper to keep her. I don't care how miserable you are. Tough it out until the kids are past child support age then dump the sorry itch

I think some men forget that they're not paying the money to their ex-wife - the money is for their KIDS. You can walk away from the marriage, but you can't walk away from supporting your children.
And if the child support levels are adjusted, the custodial parent (usually the mom) has to make up the difference.
Sad all the way around.

As a single parent of two young children that was laid off myself after 15 years in Corp America and where the father just took off to another country, even continent, to be 'free' from child support matters, I have little sumpathy. Those parents that have custody of the children (mother or father does not matter) cannot tell their children I cannot feed and clothes you today, because I lost my job. No, we make it work. In the end lots of these families will end up on the public system while the non custodial parents have a blast to ignore their responsibilities.
It is hard enough to raise children, it is a lot more harder to do it without support.
In my example the father took off shortly after the birth his kids, quit his job, liquidated his properties, cancelled all credit cards, accounts and so forth. He owes his children already tens of thousands of dollars.
The child support enforcement unit says, woops sorry nothing we can do since he is out of the country. Wrong, the US has an agreement with that country to chase these loosers down, plus they know the place of his new employment. I guess it is to much work for the child support enforcement unit to get a handle on it. Besides telling me every months how much money he owes me, I have not seen any advantage of having it handed over to them. It is made way to easy here for those kind of characters to not take care of their responsibilities and it will break the systems neck.
Yes, I do know there are parents out there that do care and help support, but that percentage is so little, it sure does not stand out.
I wish there would be more consequences for these folks... blocking a fishing and hunting license is really not going to do it.
I am wishing every child the best and a good experience to grow up with both parents in their life.... just how it should be.

ash wrote:

Yes, this is an abused system for sure. One household, theoretically, gets a major boost (custodial parent), while the other is shredded, even in good economic times. Usually, it seems, this is against the wishes of the non-custodial parent (meaning they were forced to be the non-custodial parent). It's modern day slavery.

It wouldn't be so bad if it was actually child support. But instead, it is a blank check to an ex-spouse, someone who is an ex for a reason.

I couldn't have said it better myself! Your comments are spot on. A lot of folks do not realize that this situation happens over and over again.

looking at these comments here from folks that can only express their hurt about paying their ex....
if you want to take care of your children and do not pay the ex, than get your butt up and take on full or joint custody and keep the children with you.... let's see how long you are willing to do that.... so those folks out there that think they are paying the ex/itch, whatever you want to call the one that YOU decided not to use protection with, wuit playing the victim.... your children are!

beatrice wrote:

I think some men forget that they're not paying the money to their ex-wife - the money is for their KIDS. You can walk away from the marriage, but you can't walk away from supporting your children.
And if the child support levels are adjusted, the custodial parent (usually the mom) has to make up the difference.
Sad all the way around.

And some remember this all the time and are STILL forced to pay way above guideline to custodial parents who do not pull their own weight for children whose basic requirements do not even cost the amount of the child support being paid. YES, this DOES happen. Maybe not to someone you know, but it DOES happen.

Consider this man: His ex has "sole" custody of their one child, he has physical custody/visitation 3.5 days each week, every week, and has been ordered to pay 40% of a salary he no longer earned (due to lay offs)- this at the time of the judgement. The ex works part time and lives above her means AS NOTED BY THE JUDGE.

Our system fails children every day. This young child's financial future and possibly well-being have been totally eroded by endless lawyers' fees and a screwy judge. It DOES happen.

too bad the courts don't help custodial fathers. When I couldn't get my drug addict suicidal exwife to pay the MEAGER suport she had intially been ordered I filed enforce. I then had an a-hole judge give my daughter residency to my ex but leave the custody to me. She was 16. The judge then order me to pay her 20% of my income and ordered her to pay me 25% of her income (which was half of my income)and she (the judge) refused to consider the day care and health costs which I was paying for the 2 y/o and 10y/o I still had custody of. The result was that I had to PAY my ex and I never even collected the back due amount. 10 YEARS LATER I AM NOW OUT OF WORK, AFRAID TO EVEN ASK FOR HELP BECAUSE I AFRAID OF BEING SCREWED BY THE CORRUPT WOMAN ORIENTED SYSTEM. THE 2 YEAR OLD IS NOW 12, I HAVEN'T WORKED IN 8 MONTHS. I have never gotten any help from the court system and struggle every day. I AM TIRED OF HEARING ALL THESE NEGATIVE DEADBEAT DAD STORIES. THERE WOULD BE PLENTY OF DEAD BEAT MOMS IF THE COURTS KNEW WHAT JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS WAS

"looking at these comments here from folks that can only express their hurt about paying their ex...."

I don't pay child support; don't have any children.

"if you want to take care of your children and do not pay the ex, than get your butt up and take on full or joint custody and keep the children with you...."

Many people don't have that choice. Take, for example, a man or woman that is supporting the other while he/she ostensibly takes care of their children. However, the spouse is actually just plain old unemployed, lazy. They get divorced because of this person's chronic unemployment laziness. The person claims in the divorce they should be the custodial parent because they were a stay at home spouse. The court will usually support that. Meaning, the working parent is not allowed to get equal parenting time. Further, because the working parent of more financially able, they'd still be obligated to pay child support regardless of the arrangement (unless they manage to get full custody). So, the working parent is completely unable to escape the lazy, deadbeat "stay at home" parent, even with divorce.

let's see how long you are willing to do that.... so those folks out there that think they are paying the ex/itch, whatever you want to call the one that YOU decided not to use protection with, wuit playing the victim.... your children are!

note, the last paragraph of my post is a quote frm a previous poster

"let's see how long you are willing to do that.... so those folks out there that think they are paying the ex/itch, whatever you want to call the one that YOU decided not to use protection with, wuit playing the victim.... your children are! "

I think many would rather be the custodial parent and not pay child support. Personally, if I had children with my ex-wife, and I was forced to pay something, I'd prefer to pay a live-in nanny full time than a nickel to my ex-wife.

Again, people are "ex" for a reason.

too old wrote:

Sorry, parents. You took on this responsibility when you got married and had sex (or just had sex without the marriage). Cut out the extras (cable, coffee, pets, vacations, etc) and man up. Your kids' needs now come before yours.

___

If the parents were still married, the household's lifestyle would drop when one lost a job. And they would be cutting out all the extras.

Nither rugrats nor ex-spouses are entitled to a certain standard dof living no matter what.

BTW, the max unemployment is around $380 a week or $1520 a month. That doesn't go very far to maintain a basic household and support a 2nd one.

And if they are looking for a job, these days they need a phone AND the internet. A 1/2 hour at the local library once a day is not an effective job search method.

just another one wrote:

looking at these comments here from folks that can only express their hurt about paying their ex....
if you want to take care of your children and do not pay the ex, than get your butt up and take on full or joint custody and keep the children with you.... let's see how long you are willing to do that.... so those folks out there that think they are paying the ex/itch, whatever you want to call the one that YOU decided not to use protection with, wuit playing the victim.... your children are!

Excellent post!

Did I miss the part where the unemployed dad had offered to shuttle the kids to their afterschool activities so his ex-wife wouldn't have to leave work to do it?

bfd wrote:

Did I miss the part where the unemployed dad had offered to shuttle the kids to their afterschool activities so his ex-wife wouldn't have to leave work to do it?

The story would not be as dramatic if they wrote that the husband offered to become “Mr. Mom”. Of course it would not matter how much non-monetary support the ex-husband would be willing to provide, chicks just want money!!!

my friend is now on disability. his ex has sole custody and has not allowed him to see his children since christmas. he is paying out of his disability checks even though his payments were suspended because he wants to support his children.

he wants to be the custodial parent, but the ex-itch will not let that happen, she would lose her sole source of income.

she lies to the children, she takes my friend to court monthly on bogus charges. the court system is bull crap sometimes.

they have removed judge brewer from the family court docket because she would only find in favor of the mothers, even if the fathers were a better choice for custodial parent.

judge brewer su(ks...big time....