Economy gives some dads a bad rap
Despite hints that the economy is recovering, job losses continue. But what happens when fathers who pay child support are out of work? Monica Brady-Myerov reports.
Shadows of mother with children. (iStockPhoto)
More on Spending, Investing, Saving
TEXT OF STORY
Stacey Vanek-Smith: It seems like the recession and the unemployment rate are hitting every aspect of life these days. Divorce is no exception. As more parents feel a loss of income, many are asking family courts to adjust child support payments. The bad economy is also pushing some parents into payment delinquency, contributing to the problem of deadbeat dads.
From Boston, Monica Brady-Myerov reports.
Monica Brady-Myerov: When someone loses a job, the bills don't stop coming. Mortgage, car payments, health insurance and for some, child support. But Ned Holstein, president of Fathers and Families, a group that presents dads, says there's a big difference.
Ned Holstein: Everybody is struggling. But someone who has a child support order is the only person who's going to be put in jail, because they can't pay their debts.
That's why more parents who've lost their jobs are asking the courts to lower their child support payments. That's what's happening to Jim Feeney. He's a divorced father of four who lives on Cape Cod. Before he lost his job in January, he made about $85,000 a year. He's required to may $3,200 a month in child support and alimony. When he was laid off, he immediately asked the court if he could pay less.
Jim Feeney: First, I filed for unemployment, I filed for welfare, food stamps, because I had no income. I had no savings.
Feeney spoke about his case at a restaurant after his hearing, which he had to wait two and a half months for. The judge denied his request to lower his payments and after six months after not meeting them, Feeney was put in jail. After two days behind bars, he paid a $5,000 fine and was released. But his stint in jail didn't lower his child support obligations and the fines he's racking up because he's not paying.
Feeney: There's penalties to the state, there's penalties that go to my ex-wife, there's interest to the state, there's interest that goes to my ex-wife.
Feeney's former wife refused to comment for this story. But another ex-wife of another man who just lost his job does have something to say. She's Julie Baker, she's the primary care giver to two children, ages five and nine. Her ex was recently laid off.
\Julie Baker: The first thing he said was, "I'll try to keep up the child support."
Baker said her former husband has been a supportive dad who's always paid on time. But if the tables were turned:
Baker: If I lost my job, I can't say to the kids, "You know what? You can't have lunch today. You know what? I'm sorry that your shoes are too small."
And more out-of-work parents want to change their child support agreements. But just asking the court to lower your payments, because you lost your job, isn't always enough.
Divorce attorney B.J. Krintzman says the courts are slow moving.
B.J. Krintzman: They're not going to get very far if they go in that week and say, "I lost my job, so I can no longer pay." Usually there has to be some kind of period of time that's gone by, so the obligor has to show attempts to get a job.
Some judges are sympathetic and lower payments right away, because they know it's unlikely someone will get a new job quickly. But typically it takes six months for a judge to make a decision.
Holstein: And during those couple of months, you can be going broke in a hurry.
Ned Holstein of Fathers and Families.
Holstein: Then when you get the hearing, typically, the family court judges will not give you relief at the first hearing. They say, "Well, how do we know this is going to be long standing? You might get a job next week. Also, you've got some assets, you can pay it out of your assets. And so, I'll see you again in three more months."
But it's putting fathers who mean well and love their kids in jail, because they can't pay.
Krintzman: And this is not daddy jail; this is real jail.
But divorce attorney B.J. Krintzman says what ends up happening is dads borrow money from family and friends.
Krintzman: Usually it is very rare that someone stays in jail for 30 days. So they do find ways to find the money and pay up the back child support and get themselves out of jail.
And when they do get out of jail, they'll owe even more, because child support obligations don't stop while someone is behind bars.
In Boston, I'm Monica Brady-Myerov for Marketplace Money.
Comments
Comment | Refresh
From venice, FL, 01/13/2010
Child support is like a two way street..there are good drivers and some bad drivers. Each family case is different..some need higher child support if children are Special Needs..I notice most comments do not mention this and with so many children today with medical problems/with no health insurance and the cost of living out of sight..let's just say some may be taking advantage of the support..but many other's are on the short end of the stick. My ex-son in law is $22,000 in arrears of child support, never paid the marital debt and has never been in jail (Florida)and the DOR is the collector over this case. On a Green Card to boot. In court constantly yet carp is done..why?..Court claims in jail he can't make any money. Go figure...
From Staten Island, NY, 01/05/2010
Its very sad to read some of the comments I see. And the worst are the woman, how can anyone think that a single mother is complaining. But people forget that it takes a man and a woman to make a child. From my own experiences let me tell you its not easy, but find work. So I can put food, childcare, a roof and clothing on my kids. Let me tell you that what I put into my house and kids living could never amount to the support my ex send when he feels like it. But when I do get it, it helps with food lights and gas. And I can bet that this is the case for most single parents How are kids only one parents problem
Like I read in one comment if you were still married would you call a judge to put your husband in jail because he got laid off. Which was pretty stupid to say because they would have to find a job regardless and it would be two people working not just one
but when you are alone working 3 jobs just to make ends meat for your kids because one parent only have a bag of excuses as to why they cant help well just remember this I cant make excuses I get laid off then I find something anything that will give me a few dollars. Custodial parents don't get excuses. Because kids don't understand excuses and they sure cant eat them.
From raymore, MO, 12/03/2009
It must be nice for his ex to sit around cracking a whip at him to support her more then the children it sounds like, while a lot of us hard working moms take the responsibility to meet our ex husband at least half way supporting our children we decided to bring into the world. The mother just seems like a over glorified welfare case that sits around and waits for the check to come in! Child support was never meant to be someones sole means of paying all their d**m bills living off their ex's making it impossible for them to even have enough to buy the simple things in life like groceries. Where did the fairness go???
From raymore, MO, 12/03/2009
some child support orders are reasonable
while other orders are set at a ridiculous
amount like the 3,200 a month. that is a lot when you make only 85,000 a year and i bet the mother doesn't even work since she is receiving part of the support as alimony. Maybe she should try to get a job for the time being until he can get a high enough paying job to meet that high obligation of his, I mean really in order to pay 3,200 per month you better land a high
paying job or other wise you wouldn't have a penny left over to support yourself. The judge is being very unfair to this man for the economy is terrible and some have lost high paying jobs that they can't just run out and replace. Maybe the mother should be willing to lower her standards of living too like many people have had to instead of being so greedy. With all this said however i am not saying that someone should be a deadbeat parent after all i have 4 kids i haven't received a dime for in years and it makes me sick to see women like this complaining she isn't receiving her three thousand and two hundred dollars per month. To a person paying a huge amount like this I am sure it can become very overwhelming if something happens to your job and i guess it could
almost make you feel like just running
away when the courts don't have any sympathy.
From kansas city, MO, 12/03/2009
Signing over your rights? That does sound like a simple way out. However, there is no such thing as signing over your rights without the mother agreeing to this. If she wants to continue to receive support this won't be an option for the dad.
lisa
From Mo Valley, IA, 11/30/2009
To the parents who don't make the effort to support their children, if you don't want to support them, then sign over your rights to them. Then you won't have to worry about getting any further behind. The kids aren't a big concern for you obviously if you refuse to take any job available to help support yourself and your child(ren).
From Canton, OH, 11/14/2009
To all the moms that are complaining about child support knowing that the kids dads isn't working. If you guys were still together and he lost his job and couldn't find another one right away do you call the judge and say through this guy in jail because he cant support my life style. It doesn't cost hundreds of dollars to house the kid for a month its that one part of your ex that you cant let go of"his money" and if you cant support the kid you should maybe let the dad take care of the kid.
From Mo Valley, IA, 11/11/2009
According to the Iowa CSRU you can have you child support amount reviewed for modification every 2 years. This is what they are currently doing to me. I have to ask a judge to not lower my support to the $50/month that the CSRU is requesting. I sat down the other day and broke out exactly what it costs me to raise my son every month. Shelter, food, lights, gas, water, insurance, medical, etc. At a minimum, it costs me over $700 for my teenage boy. The current order is for 420.00, and now they want to lower it. I have 3 boys, not just 1 to support. My son's father only has the 1 child. He is lazy, and hides his income by being self employed and taking checks for work done for homeowners and cashes them at the bank they are drawn on. I don't think my current order is unreasonable. People seeking absorbetant amounts must be buying the most expensive items out there.
From des moines, IA, 11/08/2009
I believe child support is a far cry from it's simple legal beginnings. Judges only put you in jail for C.S. debt. Plus, no jury trial. No other debt, it's the moment we live in. I am ordered to pay rock star CS and alimoney. Do I,no, because the original decree, and time to modification was over 2 years. $300k in legal bills & time killed my company. The goose (business)is dead. Now it's time for me to go to jail. You see, the judicial mentality is different than it is in business, the real world. You plan, work towards success and hopefully it pans-out. If you tell a Judge this (down-ward $ for CS & alimoney) and your ex opposes you, you are finished because lawyers and experts do spin the truth. Judges definitely want to kick anybody's ass who makes alot more than them. Yes, it's true, most judges are not noble individuals. There is no downside for any Judge who acts bad or even illegally, no job loss, no unemployment, always have a taxpayer funded retirement. It's much harder in the business world. Ladies quit being bitter, my ex is still very very very bitter after I made her a millionaire.
From Cottage Grove, MN, 11/06/2009
I personally want to vomit on some of the comments being made. I've had my son now for 6 years and have not seen a dime of child support, no school supply help, nothing. I filed for support and got told off basically because I am a guy. If I were a woman, bet you ten to one I'd be getting support. But here in MN, she chooses not to work, so I get nothing, yet she continues to have kids with other men...pathetic. Yet, I can't take her right away from seeing my son in which, I do all the driving too. Hmm, fair?
From FL, 10/27/2009
It's legalized extortion, plain and simple and women work the system like a well oiled machine. I am a woman and I have seen my brother, friends, nephews and cousins all trapped by women with so called unplanned pregnancies and sucked into the most corrupt, unfair system known to man. They don't care if you are the biological father, they don't care if the money is spent on the children, they don't care if the custodial parent is following the visitation guidelines they just don't care, keep sending in the money. It's extortion.
From Mo Valley, IA, 10/21/2009
I applaud all of the parents out there who are current on their child support. Your children will appreciate it when they realize that you may have gone through hardships to keep paying to take care of them. My husband has kept up on his child support, but they don't appreciate all he has done for them. Here's to all the good and rsponsible parents out there!!
From Alexandria, VA, 10/21/2009
Peggy,
You make some really good points about neglect. If he isn't providing any support, then he is neglecting his responsibility as a parent.
Unfortunately, states group people like me with him. I pay more than my share of support and have amassed over $100,000 thus far. Before it's all said and done, my ex will have rung in nearly $250,000 (1/4 million). Yet, I still get treated like a deadbeat when I deal with the Texas Attorney General-Child Support Division. It's because of people like your ex.
As far as those on welfare, that will never change. Many low income people (women) involve themselves with men who share the same demographics. They are poor, unskilled, criminal, or just plain lazy. Many of the run off and have no real source of income. Mothers left behind resort to government aid to provide for their kids in place of a deadbeat father. Mothers such as yourself who earn a living, do not qualify for welfare and are left holding all responsibility of financial support. I commend you for doing your part.
Originally, Child Support Enforcement laws were passed to keep women from going to welfare by targeting fathers for support. Sounded like a good plan because non-custodial parents should be partly responsible for supporting their kids. This plan also sounded good because the typical working class citizen would think their tax dollars would not be wasted on welfare.
So, Congress passed these laws and now the target became ALL non-custodial parents versus the suspected deadbeats. Many responsible dad's (such as myself) willingly provide support as agreed to by both parents. Now, we are locked into a system that treats us like we are all bad.
The real kicker is what most people DON'T KNOW. It costs millions of dollars more each year to ensure peole pay support than it did before the law was passed. And, the same people who applied for welfare before the laws were passed are still doing it.
What essentially happened is these lawyers, judges, and attorney generals created a smoke screen that guarantees their financial success.
From Mo Valley, IA, 10/21/2009
For David Abildgaard
Thank you for your acknowledgement that I do not benefit from what the Iowa CSRU is currently doing. My ex works construction, and is considered self employed, and harder to track. I was basically told by a state worker yesterday that since my son is not going without food or clothing and I am not drawing state aid, that my case is not priority. It doesn't matter that he owes me that much. He is one that knows how to beat the system, and even admitted in court that he didn't document his income. The state accepted a form that he signed that he stated he made approx $800/month, but gave no way to back that up. They accepted that along with his signature and tried to lower my support payments to $50/month. I had to pay to hire an attorney (cost me $2000) to fight what the CSRU was doing and base the amount on what his earning capacity is using his job history, training, and current wage for that position since he wouldn't provide any documentation of what his income actually was. There are many others out there in Iowa in the same boat as I am. We fight and struggle to support our kids, while the ex refuses to hold down employment and we end up getting the shaft. Feel free to read some posts from some other Iowa parent’s issues. http://iowachildsupport.multiply.com/journal
Per state laws, in order for you to draw unemployment you have to prove you are looking for work, correct? Why are our kids less important? Any non-custodial parent not paying child support should be forced to prove they are either employed or looking for work. If they refuse to do this, then the state should not be helping them to lower their payment amounts. By allowing a parent to get further behind they are punishing the parent who is working hard to support their kids. I asked why a parent who refuses to pay support isn't charged with neglect. I was told that the state doesn't consider non-payment of child support as neglect. Now, tell me if I am wrong, but isn't child support to prove the basic necessities such as food, shelter, and clothing? By a parent not paying child support, they are not providing those basic necessities. If the custodial parent didn't provide those things we would be charged with neglect. The non-custodial parent gets off because the custodial parent is providing the basic necessities. This is wrong!! It is one thing if the parent has been laid off and can't find a job. With the economy these days it is so hard to find work. But those parents who refuse to pay are neglecting their kids. Aren't the kids important enough to make sure that all parents are doing all they can to take care of their kids? My husband tells me I am beating a dead horse, but if no one stands up and brings attention to this matter, that it will only continue to get worse. I think something should be done at the federal level. If these states actually considered that if they could get more non-custodial parents to pay their child support, that maybe there wouldn’t be as many people drawing state assistance. Wouldn’t that be better, to not have so many people on public assistance?
From Alexandria, VA, 10/21/2009
For Peggy Hember
I agree with you 100%. The amount you currently receive is close to what state's provide foster parents to meet the needs of each child. Personally, I think the child's needs are somewhere between $500-$600 dollars a month. I personally have no problem paying that versus my current amount. Without a doubt, you are not the benefactor of excess child support as my ex is.
If Iowa is anything like Texas (not likely), then your ex should be paying 20% of his net income towards child support. The calculations aren't quite black and white as many states make it out to be since the percentage includes all taxable income within a given time. This includes bonuses, overtime, severance pay and other entitlements.
To caluclate, they only deduct state and federal taxes (singe person) and any health care paid towards the children before determining the percentage.
By reducing your ex's amount to only $100.00 per month, they are suggesting his total income is "less" than $500.00 per month. If true, then a man who only makes that amount is either young and stupid, lazy, uneducated, or has managed to find a way to beat the system through "cash only" employment. However, many states will revert to "earning potential" as a means to prevent reducing child support. What they essentially claim is when a person reaches a certain income level, that is their earning potential. Personally, I don't always agree with that because people lose their jobs and have to settle for a lower income to make a living.
I hope all works well for you. Although you are on the other side of the fence, it doesn't mean you're a bad parent. But, there are many of them out there who take advantage of a corrupt child support legal system. I welcome any other comments you or others care to share. I may not be able to change the system, but I hope I can help others from going down a path of destruction.
From Mo Valley, IA, IA, 10/20/2009
For David Abildgaard:
The court ordered amount is 420.00 month. I carry all the insurance, I would be okay with dropping it down some, but not to 100.00. Now tell me, what does 420.00 pay for.. think about it.. it costs at least that to cover all food, his share of shelter, lights, gas, I don't think that amount it too high.
From Alexandria, VA, 10/20/2009
For: Peggy Hember
Please don't misunderstand me. I strongly believe both parents should meet their responsibility when it comes to caring for their kids.
Unfortunately, the states got involved and made a private matter their own business. Like I have said several times, they get millions of dollars in their pockets to make sure non-custodial parents pay support and health care.
From a taxpayer standpoint, I don't think my hard earned dollars should go to a system that makes sure other people pay child support. Consider many American's who don't even have kids. Should their tax dollars be spent making sure others pay child support? Of course not! But the general public has no idea these attorneys and judges lobbied politicians to create a system that guarantees funding.
To answer your question; I admit that I'm no legal expert in Iowa state law. Many states differ a bit, but they all follow federal guidelines or they wouldn't get the guaranteed funding I spoke of before. If they are working to reduce his support order, then that tells me that he does not have a legitimate form of employment. If he did, all the state would have to do is subpoena his pay records to show how much money he was really making. If he is working under the table or is self employed, then there isn't much you can do. Those folks seem to be getting away with not paying their fair share, while leaving custodial parents such as yourself in a bind.
The other point I was trying to make and will never change my position on is "how much" is really needed to care for one child. That is an answer no CSEA will answer because they like the flexibility to increase child support based on a non-custodial parent's income. For instance, if they felt that the needs of a child were consistent with what they pay in foster care, I would agree to that. However, because I make much more than that, the feel I should give more.
The reality in all of this is that the state banks off of me as does my ex wife. Even if I had to give 5000.00 a month, my daughter would not see any additional benefit from it.
In all honesty, I think all custodial parents should lay out the actual expense to show what it cost per child. However, many of these parents would refuse to such a thing because it may mean less spending money for themselves. Of course, the states do not want to encounter such a decrease either.
So, I will ask you the same question I have asked many others; without assuming you are entitled to free rent, utilities, groceries, and other benefits through the collection of child support, how much do you spend a month on one child?
The reason I ask is that I pay $1202.00 a month, and my ex gets an additional $500.00 from the state for the same child (because we adopted her). No one has ever explained to me how my money is used, and the Texas Attorney General says they don't have too!
The sad thing about all of this is that the state makes no effort to ensure I have visitation with her. When it comes down to it, these agencies (and many custodial parents) are only concerned about the money; not the father.
From Mo Valley,, IA, 10/16/2009
For David Abildgaard
Obviously, you are not familiar with the Iowa laws regarding the child support collectinos. There is currently in process a review for modification of the child support amount I am to receive. The state office is putting all the paperwork together to present to a judge to have his monthly payment lowered to roughly 100/month, which will barely pay for my son's school lunches, and 2 prs of contacts every month. You are saying that I should foot the rest of expense to raise him? I don't buy my kids expensive items, I try to make due with what we can get buy with. I have never asked him to pay more than the court ordered amount. Not every mom is out to screw the father over. I just want him to do what is right and stop trying to get out of paying to support his son.
From Alexandria, VA, 10/16/2009
For: Peggy Hember
I agree with you that parents should support their kids, but don't agree with the statement indicating the state will help him reduce his child support.
The fact is that NO STATE will go out of their way to reduce any child support obligation because it's not in their best interests. As I have said before, the states rely on federal funding based on the amount of money they collect. If they reduce one's obligation, they will get less in funding. Not something they want to do. In fact, it's almost impossible because they refer to "earning potential" and suggest a person should always be able to make the same amount or even more than they once did.
These systems appear to be fair on the surface and imply they are doing what's right, but the truth is that they are lining their pockets with taxpayer dollars while drawing a bigger wedge between parents and their kids.
What the child support enforcement agencies (CSEA) should do is require custodial parents to develop a budget outlining actual monthly expenses per child and base child support on that. Of course, that amount should not include the costs incurred by the custodial parent. For instance; the cost of groceries, rent, and utilities should be divided based on the total occupancy of the domicile. Then, only the expenses for each child can be determined. What that means is that the custodial parent and any others living in the house do not get a free ride. So, non-custodail parents would truly be supporting their kids; not the ex.
Of course, CSEA and the legislation will not go for such an idea because they could stand to lose more federal funding by actually being fair to both parents.
Wake up people! This has always been about federal money (your tax dollars)being sucked into each states budget, while using the kids as an excuse to get it.
From Mo Valley, IA, 10/15/2009
I have a 15 yr old son, that his father is more than 19,000 behind on child support because he refuses to accept any job available to support himself and his son. He is once again getting the states help to try to lower his support amount when he as already admitted in court that he works for cash and doesn't document his income. I have held down the same job for more than 12 yrs and have to cover what he doesn't pay. By the states not requiring a non-custodial parent, who doesn't pay,to prove they are searching for work, they are punishing those parents who do work and taking care of their kids. This should be no different than those people receiving unemployment benefits, they have to prove their employment searches. Stay-at-home mom's shouldn't be any different. If you don't have custody of your kids, you should be forced to work to support them. Intentionally not supporting children is neglecting them and their needs.
From KY, 10/08/2009
I lost my job about mid Jan...I thought It would be easy to find another job. But it hasn't, I've been looking for a job for months..now..I face jail time if I don't come up with 309 dollars by the end of this month. If it wasn't for my wifes mom paying the bills and her food stamps..I would have nothing. Her car is now broke down, we have no money to fix it. She went to school and has a degree and she is even having problems looking for work and as for me..I just went to high school..I would expect it to be harder for me..but not her..our country is in trouble and we need help..fast. To be a dad that owes back payments for his kids is very hard. There needs to be some help. Nasa can spend 79 million to crash a unman craft into the moon..but they can't spend one cent to help out fellow americans down on their luck. All I can say is Good Luck to all the men out there like me..its not easy...and the way it looks..its not going to get that way for a long long time.
From Alexadria, VA, 10/08/2009
For: Jolene Kraklio
Usually, child support ends when the kids turn 18 and finish high school; whichever is later. Paying for college is something that should have been included in the divorce decree. The fact is that a college education is not a requirement for raising a child. In fact, the child becomes an adult when they become of age. The problem I see with this suggestion is that a non-custodial parent is caught in the Child Support Enforcement Act for an additional 4 years. I'm sure these state agencies would love that additional money flowing through their system so they can increase their federal funding. However, the only true way to break ties with the custodial parent is get obligations over with. As of now, these agencies continue to build wedges between parents and create additional heartache. To answer your question; I personally object to anything that keeps the state agencies involved in private lives. Want a free education? Have the kids join the military. At least they would earn it, and wouldn't be extending the the pain and suffering caused by financial strain.
From Muscatine, IA, 10/08/2009
Can anyone tell me where to write to to get the law changed that divorced parents do not have to pay for college? My husband lost his job in January and child support recovery told him since he only had a year left to pay he couldn't get the child support lowered. I think it is unfair that married couples do not have to pay for their childrens college. Is there anyone out there who agrees with me?
From Alexandria, VA, 10/06/2009
To: Dave Rogers
Dear Dave, it seems as though you have been able to maintain a positive attitude after all you have been through. As for me, I can never get passed the wrongdoing of this corruption.
I refuse to let people walk over me, but I find myself in a losing situation because no one really cares except those of us trapped in similar situations. We are up against a legal system that uses child suuport as a source or personal income. Not only do we support our kids, we support our ex wives and the system that represents them.
What I will never do is give more than I'm ordered. Unfortunately, I refuse to buy anything for my daughter as long as I'm paying so much support. Someday she might ask why, and I'll explain that the 1200.00 a month I give should cover all her needs and the presents she expects to get on holidays and birthdays.
The fact is, many of us give more than we should. So, why should we keep giving in addition to what's already being TAKEN? As you saw for yourself, you don't get any extra crdit for going above and beyond. I think if dads want to give more, they should send it directly to the system so at least they get credit. Then, tell the ex she will get a monthly check that is larger than normal and the excess is supposed to be used for any gifts. The state will be happy because they still report it as a collected amount. The ex will be happy because she gets more money, and the father will know he provided a little more for a special occasion. If the mother blows it on something other than a gift, then she gets to explain why she didn't buy little Susie the present you sent extra money for.
For me, it's apparent the State of Texas and my ex wife are so determined to make this a money issue versus good parenting, so I'll follow suit and pay what I have too. In the end, my child will lose her father because of greedy people and not a selfish dad. LET THEM EXPLAIN where all the money went; because we are not entitled to that type of information.
From atlanta, GA, 10/05/2009
Guy's/Dudes,I feel ya! I lost my job that paid me $19.00hr, I have paid pretty high child support,But I always bought my daughter lots of extra things,example,I would take her to toys r us give her a large buggie and say fill it up with anything you want,take her to all name brand stores gap,pac sun,also support her art hobbie with all kinds of supplies and special art tables to work from, just to name a few things, she is around 10 at that time, I would get her $100.00 hair styles,will you get the message. She needed a retainer for her teeth it was around $1000.00 I paid for the whole thing and left the payments in my ex wifes name so I could help her with building her credit up. Well I lost my job ,it went over seas,my daughter was 14 at this time,my ex wife told me dont worry about it you have done more than your share, she asked me what i was going to do,I said I would like to be a massage therapist, and that I would keep medical insurance on my daughter and send money every month and work on building up my clients,my ex wife said go for it good luck, so I pay a few thousands dollars and get to school, 2 weeks into class my ex wife flip flops on me saying she needs more money,then she got the state on me within 30days of me going to school,so I had to get a lawyer $2,000, go to court,I got my ass kicked, They figured my massage at a crazy income plus my tips,and the judge said i could work flipping burgars and massage cause at the time I wasnt making very much money right out of massage school,then my ex said I didnt see my daughter very much,the judge added more money to my child support, So I couldnt afford to keep up my massage license, so I had to drop them,but my lawyer said its to late to change this cause the judge signed the orders,O by the way since I didnt get the modification right away they pilled up several thousand in back support,right now I make about $10.00 an hour,no massage,and iam paying more now than I was when I was makeing twice the money, I got 7more months ,and about half the back paid. I found out that my daughter droped out of school in th 8th grade,plus she has failed about 3 grades for days missed like 100 days in a school year, then her mom pulled her out of school said she was going to home school her,I looked into this and found out that she is not being home schooled, little to say I havent spoken to my ex wife or my daughter in about 3yrs,the last phone call i got was from ex saying that my daughter needed $800.00dollar hair extenions or my daughter was going to harm herself,need less to say I dont need that kind of drama so I changed my phone number,they can get in touch with me through a 3rd party,well thats most of my story, good luck guys,the system is very unfair to dads O by the way Iam having a real hard time, I find it hard to get out of bed in the morning,I have had to sell my car,all my massage equipment,and several other things,I have gone hungry,have had mental break down where I would cry for no reason, I feel sick all the time,iam a member of a local gym and I try to go when i can,it does seem to help,my mom lets me use her car for work or to the gym, I do believe things will get better, I have only one way to go and thats up !
From Lancaster, PA, 09/29/2009
To: Richard Dewey
I just re-read the comments and I find your point of view very refresshing. I too can attest to the point you laid out on non-custodial vs. custodial expenses. It seems most people are so blinded by the rhetoric of the day, which is commonly spewed carelessly in the family courts by morally bankrupt Lawyers, and simply respond in haste without concern for the entire story. That is not to say that all lawyers are bad, certainly I can list many Lawyers I know personnly who are very upstanding individuals and people I would enjoy spending my time with. Unfortunately it only takes a few bad apples to spoil the bunch, and the same goes for some of the parents involved as well.
-- Basil Phanara
From Alexandria, VA, 09/28/2009
TO: Basil Phanara
Thanks for your words and support. I really wish there were enough people out there willing to make a stand against an unjust system. These father's right's groups seem to make an occasional argument, but I have yet to know of any large protests that garner media attention. I think one or two things will have to happen to bring this corruption to the forefront; a large protest similar to gay and civil rights, or some crazy nut expressing himself at a Child Support Enforcement Agency like Tim McVeigh did in Oklahoma City. Personally, I don't condone such violence; but I would understand it!
From Lancaster, PA, 09/26/2009
TO: David Abildgaard,
Bravo David. Well stated! Your comments nailed the character of the current Family Court System, completely. It is nice to know that I as a Single Father and Non-Custodial parent am not alone. I am honored to have my name listed next to yours on this article.
-------------
To: Jeanne Carter,
We await your intelligent rebuttal…
-- Basil Phanara
From Alexandria, VA, 09/24/2009
To: Jeanne Carter,
How many custodial parents have their credit ruined, lose their license, or go to jail when they are unable to provide support? The answer is obvious! NONE, NADA, ZIP, or ZELCH! They get government assistance instead and many of the state agencies go after the father to pay them back. Nothing like getting paid to babysit your own kids. Can't handle the hassles of raising a child and feel like the other person should aways come through? Try giving up custody and put the shoes on the other foot. I'm sure you would love to be locked into a system until all debt is paid. God forbid some of you money grabbing custodial parents have to lose that extra revenue and have to pay for a change. Most men would rather take care of their children than continue to pay for the ex's additional expenses. By the way, should child support be used to pay all the rent, utilities, insurances, food and clothes for everyone in the house? If so, what portion should you or other custodial parents be paying? Understand, many parents don't get enough to cover the child's expenses, but there are some who get more than they should. Explain where that money goes!
From Alexandria, VA, 09/23/2009
Overall, I think people are getting wise to the corruption that goes on in the child support enforcement arena. Basically, a bunch of legal experts worked together to form a "Cash Cow" for the state(s) legal systems.
By passing strict child support enforcement laws, they have guaranteed themselves federal funding. As taxpayers and non-custodial parents, we take it on both ends. On one hand, money goes to the custodial parent while tax dollars go to pay those who make sure the money is deducted. And, we would all be hard-pressed to find attorneys who will go up against the very system that feeds them.
The third element to this situation is called welfare. As many of you should know, the main reason for passing these laws was to reduce the amount welfare claims by forcing fathers to pay. Even so, all they really did was shift federal dollars from welfare to the legal system. Because welfare is still a viable option for needy families, our tax dollars continue to feed that system as well.
As a responsible parent, I accept the obligation to help support my child. However, I will never accept the manner in which the state(s) intervene. Unfortunately, we never see much attention on the sides of non-custodial parents unless they are coined “Deadbeats”. My suspicion leads me to believe that a media outlet with a legal team assigned will block any negative publicity that puts each state in the lime light.
Many of non-custodial parents (me included) believe there should be some accountability on the part of the other parent when it comes to expensing child support payments. I’ll be the first to tell you that my ex spends a small portion of child support on my daughter, while buying all types of luxury items for herself and her companion. While in court last January, the Asst Attorney General from Texas went so far as calling me a “sad” person for not voluntarily increasing the amount I was paying. When I asked my ex to explain how she was going to use $1,700 a month in the interests of my daughter, the Asst AG looked at me in replied harshly “she don’t have too”.
The real reason there’s no mechanism in place for monitoring how child support is spent hinges on money. In realty, the state agencies couldn’t care less about the child’s best interest because their focus lies with the amount of federal funding that flows through the system. By adding a monitoring section, additional resources would require them to use up more of the budget. By doing so, pay raises and other operating expenses would be affected. Once again, that suggestion doesn’t serve the agency(s) best interest.
In all actuality, many of the agencies could be shut down or even reduced. Now that the system is nationally automated, those who move from job to job are placed in a database that forces employers to deduct child support from their paychecks. As a matter of experience, I have changed companies five times due to contract work. No matter where I go, it only takes 1-2 pay period s before deductions are made. And, I never had to take any action at all to get it started.
In the state of Texas, I can prove they have lied to me and take more money than the required guidelines. When I found out they overstated my annual income by $8000, I was told it was too late to correct the mistake because the judge signed the order. Even though I knew the amount was wrong, I couldn’t prove it because they refused to show me how the calculation was made. In fact, they relied to my request in writing that it wasn’t in the “state’s best interest” to provide me with such information. Come to find out, they calculated my pay based on 26 pay periods in a year, when I only have 24. Of course, I could never find an attorney to fight the system and get it corrected. And, I could only employ an attorney from that local small town area. Needless to say, they are all colleagues and will not make the fight against each other for the sake of a non-custodial parent.
What the state of Texas did was create the biggest wedge between me and my child. One that will probably never be completely mended because of the hostilities between the other parent and I. Before the state got involved, the relationship between my ex and I was amicable. Now that I was put in a financial strain and forced into bankruptcy, I absolutely refuse to speak to her ever again; no matter what the issue is. In fact, I despise her more than the time she had an abortion from another man while married to me.
This whole situation comes down to responsibility and accountability. As non-custodial parents, we are held to a higher level. If we don’t pay, we face losing our license, ruining credit, and even going to jail. All the custodial parent has to do it make sure there’s food, clothes, and shelter. Of course, many of them will claim it’s difficult to care for a child with all the daily routine. My answer to them would be “give the other parent custody then”. Of course, they start singing a different tune when they see the potential of losing child support or having to pay it themselves.
What about those women who go out and have affairs and get pregnant? Unbeknownst to the husband, he may be supporting children that are not actually his. Yes, it has happened and many men are paying for a woman’s wrong doing. No accountability on their part at all. And, what if the other parent is nowhere to be found? You don’t see the custodial parent being threaten with jail time for not providing support for their kids. That’s where the welfare system benefits them too.
The fact of the matter is that this entire system had good intentions (on the surface), but it has become the most corrupt entity across the United States. And, because we are talking about the entire legal system, politicians who were former attorneys are unlikely to make change. Consider this; John Cornyn is a Texas Senator who used to be the Texas Attorney General. As such, he was responsible for the entire Child Support Division. Don’t think for a minute that he will try and disrupt the very system that helped get him elected.
From Lancaster, PA, 09/19/2009
I would further like to add that my Ex-Wife has a Bachelors degree in child psychology that she got while we were married. To get that degree she asked me to forgo pursuing my college for my degree in computer science until she graduated. We were divorced shortly after she graduated, imagine that. She is now employed at a bank making over $30,000 annually along with almost $10,000 TAX FREE from me for child support. So how can she be falling behind? Because she is irresponsible in her spending habits and she knows it and will not bother trying to change that. One evening we had a financial counselor come to help us try to create a budget. I was left "alone" with the counselor while she went to "Google" information about Avon. The counselor and I had a pretty good plan in place except that there was a shortage of about $200.00 in the budget. As I and the budget counselor tried to eliminate the shortage, she came in and said "Just cut out the tithe, we don't need to give away that much money anyway". Wow talk about a cold heart! No too many custodial parents are being given a free ride and all they have to do is accuse the other parent (without proof) of being a danger to their child. Then when you finally prove your innocence in court it is already too late for you to gain primary custody of your child because of the length of time the child has been with the other parent. This was the Judges own view in my case and I am sure it has been the same for many other Judges. It�s time to fight back and regain our rights to be loving parents and not merely visitors and meal tickets! Kids Need Dads, Not Visitors...
From Lancaster, PA, 09/19/2009
I am a Father who pays child support and I do not mind doing so if it serves my Daughter's best interest. I have to say that I agree with Mark Stevens that child support is supposed to be a Reimbursement for child relates costs and that a RESPONSIBLE custodial parent WOULD NEVER plan to be solely dependant as a form of income. As to the subject of child support, not spousal support, being considered a reimbursement to the custodial parent, I further charge that there needs to be accountability on the part of the custodial parent. As it stands now, the custodial parent is not required to show any proof that the money they receive is actually being spent in the best interest of the child. Why are there no checks and balances on this money? If the government is going to police the non-custodial parent and force a garnishment of their wages, then why are they not policing the custodial parent to ensure they are diligent and responsible with the money they receive for child support? The government is supposedly working to protect "The Best Interests of the Child" so why do they not extend their dedication to that end and require the custodial parent to account for the actual expenses related to the care of the child? It isn't that hard for a custodial parent to practice responsible accounting of the money they spend to care for their child whom they proclaim they love so much more than the child's other parent. If they do in fact love that child they should be willing to be responsible parents. The custodial parent should be required to keep an accurate ledger of the expenses they face in the care of the child, especially in these bleak times with unemployment at an all time high.
My Ex-Wife wears brand new clothes every day and yet she complained to me that she is somehow magically $300 dollars behind on our daughter's private school tuition. Hmm maybe if she could forgo shopping at all those over-price clothing outlets, she might just be able to avoid getting behind on those payments. Where is the responsible accounting there? How does it server the best interest of your child to shop at over-priced outlets? I do happen to know what she buys and that those outlets are truly over-priced because she used to cause an average of $150 to $240 of overdrafts each month in our bank account doing so when we were married and then yelled at me for not being able to pay the bills.
I believe that if the custodial parent were required to account for the way they spend the money they receive for child support that the states would soon realize how imbalanced their formula for determining child support really is. I believe they would also be forced to lower that requirement. But the states don't really want to do that, not when they are receiving such large incentives from federal funding to collect as much as they possibly can. Just Google "A-Quick-Summary-of-Title-IVD-Funding-and-Incentives" and "Act-IV-Funding-Government Run Child Marketing Scam" and you will see what I mean. In Pennsylvania the current incentive is a reward of $3.75 for every $1.00 the state brings in through child support orders! This is to cover the Administrative Expenses of enforcing child support orders. Folks this amounts to billions of our federal tax dollars being diverted to the state’s coffers that could be spent elsewhere to reduce the national deficit! And as the state increase what they bring in via enforcement of child support so do they increase that federal reward! Child support is a joke in its current state! The states don't care about the best interest of the child except that it has become a very powerful money making tool.
I further agree that jail should never be an issue for family related civil debt.
As for Jeanne Carter, I really feel sorry for you. It is very apparent that you are either disillusioned or misinformed. I understand that you may think you are right but you really just do not have a grasp on the true state of affairs when it comes to divorce and child support.
From Baltimore, MD, 09/18/2009
I am disheartened to see yet another article about the financial problems of men who father children. The most important point has already been made. A child needs the support of both parents. Custodians lose their jobs too, the children's needs do not change. Custodians are too busy doing what is necessary to support their children to join and organize groups to whine and lobby for legislation that makes it easier for children to go without support. The children come first! Spend time and resources on that!
From AZ, 09/17/2009
As a father who has paid child support for more than 10 years I can see both sides of this story. My ex-wife is the custodial parent and I was given every other weekend and a week in the summer. Eventually my ex began making plans for my weekends that the kids couldn't resist. So as time went on I had even less time with my girls. Yet I have always paid my child support. Then a year ago I went in the hospital and wasn't expected to live. She wouldn't even have the heart to bring the girls to see me for what could have been the last time I ever got to see them. In 10 years my ex has claimed she doesn't work and so the entire support was on my shoulders. Yet if I didn't have a job I would have still had to pay the amount originally ordered. During that 10 years her boyfriend from during our marriage has moved in with her, she has managed to go to college and attain a bachelors degree and now works full time as a teacher. Now, the financial situation we were in when we divorced was that the house payment was only $550 per month and there was no car payment. The late model vehicle I left her with was paid off. So, her $550 mortgage, auto insurances, electricity etc. was actually less than $850 per month. Yet I was ordered to pay more per month than her monthly expenses less groceries, plus insurance for the children. In addition I was stuck with all other debt - credit cards that were around $15,000. I have no problem paying child support for my children, they are my children and I love them dearly. However there does need to be some fairness in all this. I have pretty much been in perpetual financial ruin for the last 10 years while she gets herself an education and doesn't make an income - or claims not to. What would happen if I didn't have a job during that time period? I would have been rotting in jail while my bills and child support debt continued to add up. Now, because of the financial state of this country I am not making enough to cover my own living expenses and may soon lose the roof over my head while my ex continues to collect more money than she needs to make her monthly living expenses. I realize there are many fathers out there who simply don't want to pay child support and think they shouldn't have an obligation. I HAVE an obligation to my children, but I need to live somehow as well.
From Arcade, NY, 09/15/2009
My son and ex have a true shared custody agreement. There is no residential parent. They have equal time with the children. He pays support to her. Before the divorce she was willing to give him the children. That is until she found out money was attached to them. So she fought him for full custody. He had to go into to debt big time to get shared custody. He was the main caregiver at the time but no one cared about that. He's a good dad and the kids cried for months having to go back to mom. Again no one cared. He has been 4 years trying to pay down debt from divorce. Just started to make some progress and now is laided off. So now he will be trying to pay child support from unemployment. He won't even bother to try and get it reduced becuase he knows it won't happen. Our family has helped him finacially though the divorce so that he could kept his apt. for the children since he also raises them. It has put a major burden on us. Now we are having finance problems and can't help him. So I wonder what the future will hold now. Dads are looked at a bank roll and not much else. I have seen this first hand. No one cares how he will support the kids when he has them. Only how she will support them. She does not provide anything to his home. But he is supposed to provide to hers. I didn't see the courts looking at the best interest of the children only the best interest of the mother. My son was even told by a mediator when he refused anything but shared custody that most men only want shared custody to get out of child support. I found that insulting. Why do people feel that dad should not want his kids because their mom decided to leave. They were there raising these children also. Just feel there are two sides to every story and that both sides should be considered. People should try to look at both realities, Not just from the mom's side.
From Urbana, IL, 09/09/2009
Hey, Billy Jackson, here's a thought: don't get into a sexual relationship with such a "horrible" woman next time. Take some responsibility for your own choices, for once. (Also, remedial writing: look into it. Might improve your earning power somewhat.)
One thing I cannot stand is when people complain bitterly about their horrible ex-whatever. Nobody forces you to marry or have a sexual relationship with a "money-grubbing witch" or a "loser over-aged frat boy." And few people hide their true natures so successfully that you are truly blindsided when that person turns out to be less than honorable. (And if you're that easily fooled, then you're not competent enough to be having adult relationships in the first place.) No, too often, people tend to either overlook a lack of character for sake of a killer body or just for the chance of getting laid, or they have the mistaken notion that marriage and parenthood will make a loser partner miraculously grow up. For heaven's sake, the best thing you can do for your children is to choose their other parent with care. If you have a horrible ex, you have no one but yourself to blame for rushing into a sexual relationship with someone you didn't truly know well enough to judge their parental fitness accurately.
Even the most reliable forms of birth control can have a slight failure rate. So try thinking with the upstairs brain next time, and make better choices when deciding to have an intimate relationship or marital commitment with someone.
09/08/2009
to sara dupree
How does it feel,The non-custodial parent has the bias,crapp for 18-21 years.And 90% of the time its the father,I am a non custodial parrent of 2 children-that dont evan have my last name and married the(%^&&$) thet birthed them,The courts and states and motherare all out for money.period.The father is regarded as useless.infact its a giant extortion ring.ex-wants daddies money and new daddys D@c%.that is untill he messis up and gets her pregnant.than hes just like me a atm card.But its allways our fault.I dont and wont pay a dime of support willingly.untill i am treated like a parent.I cant stand women they are greedy lieing C#n$s.and they all need to be shot.allong with the cruced judges and politicians.im tired of male bashing.and being expected to like it.she should have thought about not getting my money when she lied and acused me of DV.or when she raped me in my sleep because she knew i didnt want another child.or when she didnt give either child my nam.shes on her own as far as im concerned.We men need to all stop paying this extortion.and start working off the books.Get our selves armed,and about 1-2,000,000 over run the whitehouse,and start burning some court houses and SCU offices.and thats just for starters.I refuse to be treated like a floormat and pay for the priviledge.And i could care less about what you the government,or family court thinks of me.you want a man to act like a father you treat him like one.you treat him like nothing he will act like nothing.its time guys they want the system exactly the way it is.Lets arm ourselves and take our children,and country back.stop funding the birocracy.
From Knoxville, TN, 09/07/2009
My fiancee has always paid for health insurance, school fees, child care, basically everything since gaining custody of his children back 4 years ago. His mistake was agreeing to joint custody again after gaining full cusotdy because of the mother neglecting the children. She had gottena job, her own place, and seemed sincere in the children's welfare. My fiancee got laid off a few months ago, and lost the insurance, so now she is taking him to court for child support, even though they had the state insurance as a backup. She pays nothing for it, but now she says he owes her because he isnt paying the insurance anymore. She also is supposed to be paying him child support (even though she wont work, so the courts ruled her indigent and only charged her $3.00/month), but she is 3 years behind. I am a mother myself, but I feel it is ridiculous that the courts do not make fair decisions when a male is involved. If the roles had been reversed, there is no way that a judge would have only charged him $3.00/month child support. Why don't men have equal rights?
From Chicago, IL, 09/06/2009
It's a crying shame, isn't it? A man is keeping his family, the wife thinks she can do better. So she kicks the man out of his house, and attempts to financially rape him, under pain of jail. Where is the outrage, people? This is not the time for analyzing facts, but for open revolt against such an unjust system. At the very minimum, a total boycott on all child-support payments is in order, until justice prevails. Ah, and let's not forget, this is brought to you by the Clintons, Bill Bradley and Joe Biden.
From St Louis, MO, 09/02/2009
To Elizabeth Ebel-Nuwayser who said "Non-custodial parents rarely pay support that covers even half of the actual cost of raising children":
Are you seriously suggesting that $3,200 a month is not even half of the cost of raising a child?? My husband and I support a family of 4 on less than that. And while that man may make 85,000 a year, you have to remember that he only sees about half of that. His ex wife, however, gets $38,000 per year in support alone. Tax free. Are we supposed to feel sorry for HER instead? Maybe SHE should have saved some money. Maybe SHE should sell HER assests to support the child SHE helped bring into the world . . .
And please remember, the point of child support is not to "pay half" (wouldn't it be great if it was) it is to give the child the same standard of living he would have if the parents were together. Well, guess what-- for parents who are still together, if one loses his / her job, the whole family feels that, including the children. There's nobody to blame, there's nobody to sue, you just learn to go without. Being a single mother (or the child of a single mother) does not automatically entitle you to a higher standard of living than others who have lost their jobs. The fact that the family courts believe that it does is an insult and an injustice to men who are already down on their luck.
To Sarah Dupree who noted that the article did not cover the "realities of single moms stuck carrying the burden of child-related expenses." :
The sad truth is, if the custodial mother can not meet those expenses, she does not go to jail; the non-custodial parent, however, WILL. How's that for a burden? I'm sure there are a lot of fathers who would love to be "stuck" with custody of their children and court-enforced monthly income.
From Prague, 08/31/2009
Since the father is out of work, and usually the mother doing some kind of work, then he should get custody and have her pay.
From Everett, WA, 08/31/2009
The issue really comes down to this: child support is SUPPOSED to be a REIMBURSEMENT for child related costs. In other words, the custodial parent should NEVER EVER be depending on child support, it's just a reimbursement. Like any reimbursement you may have to wait for it. It shouldn't be a big deal if you do have to wait for it. So the problem really is women that do not live up to their finanical obligations because they're living in large part on child support.
Jail should never be an issue for civil debt.
From NYC, 08/31/2009
I agree with one poster: these single moms are pathetic leeches. They should have kept their legs crossed if they didn't have enough money to raise kids.
And here is a word for all men out there: you have NO moral obligation to pay for kids for which you have NO PARENTAL RIGHTS. Don't let anyone else tell you otherwise. Visitation is baby-sitting, not parenting!
08/30/2009
Elizabeth Ebel-Nuwayser seems to think that the dad who was making $85,000 a year has only himself to blame for not having saved enough to cover child support after losing a job. Given a normal tax situation he was paying over half of his *after tax* income to his ex-wife. If the ex-wife was working it was far easier for *her* to have saved money.
Over 80% of the job loss in the current economic downturn has been suffered by males. If the couple were married, the parents would have to adjust to the lower income. Since they are not married Elizabeth Ebel-Nuwayser seems to think that custodial moms are entitled to the special privilege of economic immunity.
From VA, 08/28/2009
If the couple was still married and one parent lost their job the other parent would (normally) find a way to pick up the slack, or they would find a way to cut expenses. But when the couple is divorced all of a sudden it becomes adversarial because the Non-custodial parent (usually the father) is no longer a person in the eyes of the custodial parent or the court. They are a paycheck. An ATM machine. There is no compassion. There is no collaberation.
What really gets under my skin is that two thirds of divorces are initiated by women. Women know that they are more likely to get custody of the children, and often retain a significant amount of the fathers income - enforced by the courts. Divorce seems like a much better deal than working out your problems. In fact, studies show that in states where there is a presumption of shared custody (which also means less redistribution of wealth from one parent to the other) not only is the percentage of divorces initiated by women significantly lower - but the overall divorce rate is as well.
Who do you think loses out in those situations? The lawyers and the people writing the laws. The state because they get less money from the Fed for collecting child support. They have a financial incentive to keep the no-fault divorce machine rolling - to the detriment of families and chidren.
Men get screwed. A man can get hit with no-fault divorce, have his children and his income forcibly taken from him, and if he tried to fight it will end up in JAIL. Men know that if they initiate divorce they will end up without their kids, and without almost half of their income.
And before anyone gets started male bashing me - I am a woman. I can see that what is happening is wrong - even if it would benefit me if I chose to get a divorce. Morals people.
From Arlington, MA, 08/27/2009
Child support is not the only expense for most fathers.
The list typically also includes: family medical and dental coverage; shared educational expenses; shared extracurricular expenses; rent/mortgage on a decent place that their kids can call home when they "visit;" regular purchases of clothes, shoes, purses, bats, balls, gifts and preparations for birthdays and holidays -- all the stuff that typical kids need and want and that Dad wants to buy for his kids too as a way to participate in their lives; reliable transporation; etc. About the only thing substaintially unequal expense, in my experience, between mom's and dad's who do not have shared physical custody expenses is groceries.
The comment from Elisabeth from VA above that the guy making $85K, and paying out $38K tax-free, should have saved money so that he could continue paying $38K/year in the event he had no income due to job loss is the kind of silly, thoughtless, illogical nonsense that passes for sound child support policy and practice.
From richmond, VA, 08/25/2009
To Elizabeth Ebel-Nuwayser: If someone making $85,000/yr is paying $3,200/month in child support, that's almost $40,000 year post tax. And the money is tax free to the mother. He appears to be paying more than half his after tax income to someone who doesn't seem to feel the need to economize when times get hard. My income is down and my kids may get less clothes & less expensive food because of it - you need to deal with the economic reality of the day.
From Philadelphia, PA, 08/24/2009
Dear Marketplace,
I found your teaser for this piece insipid yet offensive, but not because I'm a dad who pays a lot (your show is about money, right?). Rather, I find the time-honored, gender-baiting duality of your winners/losers setup for the story nauseating. Just maybe it's time to back off the hand-on-hip-so-right/so wrong mentality concerning financial aspects of parenting? Children may in fact benefit much of the time if we can, and a zero sum scenario is rare folks. To me, that's the trajectory of the story to which your teaser seemed to point.
Please don't throw blood in the water; there's already plenty of it, and attorneys don't need chum. Hey, now there's a great follow-up story: just how much money does the family court system help generate for attorneys and directly away from families? Tell us, Marketplace, just how perverse those incentives are. But email me to let me know about it, because now I'm in either/or mode too, and my radio now goes "off" long before you do the numbers.
From Moorhead, MN, 08/23/2009
John Murphy, WIC isn't going to pay the rent/mortgage. Food stamps won't buy the kids shoes. And don't even bring up "welfare," all of the hoops and hurdles that comes with that, the employment training programs and crap that make it pretty much impossible to actually get a job, take care of your kids, or stay sane in the process. Yeah, there are thrift stores, there's Freecycle, there's making do with what you have a little longer, etc. But her point is pretty much "get a job, because you have responsibilities." I know some non-custodial parents are very aware of those, but some have their priorities pretty screwed up, maybe because they don't see the reality of their kids' lives from day to day.
From Alexandria, VA, 08/23/2009
I am stunned at the short shrift given to the plight of the custodial parent in this story. An intelligent quote is offered with no additional acknowledgment from the host. She simply continues on about how non-custodial parents are trying to reduce their payments. Let's remember that raising children costs the same whether their parents are working or not.
Mr. Holstein seems to feel his support payments are going to his ex-wife rather than toward his responsibility to raise and care for his 4 children. Am I to feel sorry that this $85,000 a year man did not think to save any money against the possibility he would need to support his children no matter the circumstances? Are his children expected to do with less now because he wouldn't sacrifice some of his wants and save? Custodial parents don't have that luxury.
Non-custodial parents rarely pay support that covers half the actual cost of raising children. Maybe they should put their energy into finding the new job or managing their finances instead of crying about the inconvenience of having continued responsibility to children they helped bring into the world.
From Oak Harbor, WA, 08/23/2009
That lady talking about no lunch and too small shoes sounded very smug. As if she is hoping her ex-husband goes to jail.
Has she thought of this... If Dad is in jail, there still is no child support check.
With her kids ages she quailifies for WIC, foodstamps and other government aid.
While Mom is feeling smug, what is she demonstrating ie teaching by example to her kids?
From phoenix, AZ, 08/22/2009
They should just put these money-grubbing single-mothers in jail instead.
From ND, 08/22/2009
I found this piece biased in favor of fathers with very little time given to cover the realities of single moms who are stuck carrying the burden of child-related expenses. If the reporters took the time to speak with Fathers and Families, why not find a comparable single-mothers organization? It’s unfair to give time to Ned Holstein, who obviously had a polished, prepared statement and then interview one mother (even with a good “off-the cuff” statement) and think that is responsible journalism. C’mon—I expect more from you guys!
Post a Comment: Please be civil, brief and relevant.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. Marketplace reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air if they are extra-interesting. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to American Public Media. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited email and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.