JP Cusick and Child Support

[jimnyc]

I am DYING to hear our new members take on child support and why he thinks it's the worst thing in the world. This is a man running for "actual office", and apparently doesn't believe parents should be financially responsible for their kids. My ONLY issue, ever, is WAY off topic - and that it irritates me that a man MUST pay CS even if he didn't want a kid.... You know, the whole abortion / have child and man having little input. But anyway, what is done is done and at that point BOTH parents need to take responsibility.

JP - as a man running for office, which would include all financials being disclosed... I'd be very curious to hear if you currently pay CS or ever did. Additionally, were you EVER behind on said payments?

Then explain to us what the horror is in CS...

[JP Cusick]

I am DYING to hear our new members take on child support and why he thinks it's the worst thing in the world. This is a man running for "actual office", and apparently doesn't believe parents should be financially responsible for their kids.

I am not really saying that I do not like it when both the biological parents raise their own children, as I am only against the evil Child Support and Custody laws which interfere with the parents doing their own parenting.

It is the laws which are wrong, and the laws make the 2 parents wrong.

My ONLY issue, ever, is WAY off topic - and that it irritates me that a man MUST pay CS even if he didn't want a kid.... You know, the whole abortion / have child and man having little input. But anyway, what is done is done and at that point BOTH parents need to take responsibility.

I very much disagree with that horrible stance that the father might want an abortion so then the mother has no claim on the father who did not want the baby.

That argument is sound and sensible except at the same time it is a cruel and inhuman stance too.

I find that many abortions really are done based on the 2 parents being worried about the Child Support and Custody laws which the 2 parents know that those laws will attack them as parents so they chose an abortion instead, which is another example of those laws being evil.

JP - as a man running for office, which would include all financials being disclosed... I'd be very curious to hear if you currently pay CS or ever did. Additionally, were you EVER behind on said payments?

I give all that info on my website of my finances and my own Child Support history, and I am told that some time after 5 posting then I can start putting links onto this forum.

To copy paste it onto here would not be cool, and to summarize the info is done on the website.

Then explain to us what the horror is in CS...

The Child Support and Custody laws have turned parenting into a crime, and has turned millions of parents into criminals and the laws alienate the children from their parents, and creates an unnatural barrier between the two parents.

So that makes the Child Support and Custody laws as evil.

[avatar4321]

And what crime has it turned parenting into?

[JP Cusick]

And what crime has it turned parenting into?

I see that as a sensible question because there is no real crime at all.

The parents are persecuted and insulted, degraded, incarcerated, and more when their only crime is being a parent.

Of course the parents are put into jails for being too poor to pay the thieving Child Support, but being poor (or a parents being poor) is not a real crime either.

The answer to the question is that there is no crime at all by the parents involved.

There is the State crimes against its citizens as in persecuting the parents under the evil Child Support and Custody laws.

[fj1200]

... thieving Child Support...

So the child who didn't ask to be born is stealing from his/her parents?

[avatar4321]

I don't see how being expected to support your children is thievery.

Taking from one person to give to another who has no right to it is robbery.

Taking from a person in order to pay a debt they are failing to pay to another is not.

[JP Cusick]

So the child who didn't ask to be born is stealing from his/her parents?

I am not saying that the children are stealing from their parents, as that is your own projection.

What I say is that the children are stolen from their other parent by the Custody laws which are effectively kidnapping the children from their noncustodial parent.

And it could be said that the Custodial is stealing the Child Support, but in fact the Custodial is only receiving the extorted and stolen Child Support cash.

The true thief in this regard is the State laws which steal the children and then steal the Child Support as the State is the thief.

[ConHog]

I see that as a sensible question because there is no real crime at all.

The parents are persecuted and insulted, degraded, incarcerated, and more when their only crime is being a parent.

Of course the parents are put into jails for being too poor to pay the thieving Child Support, but being poor (or a parents being poor) is not a real crime either.

The answer to the question is that there is no crime at all by the parents involved.

There is the State crimes against its citizens as in persecuting the parents under the evil Child Support and Custody laws.

Among the MANY things you have wrong here. If you don't support your offspring, financially or otherwise, you are not a parent, you are a DNA donor and nothing more.

[Gunny]

I see that as a sensible question because there is no real crime at all.

The parents are persecuted and insulted, degraded, incarcerated, and more when their only crime is being a parent.

Of course the parents are put into jails for being too poor to pay the thieving Child Support, but being poor (or a parents being poor) is not a real crime either.

The answer to the question is that there is no crime at all by the parents involved.

There is the State crimes against its citizens as in persecuting the parents under the evil Child Support and Custody laws.

Incorrect. Parents are jailed for not paying child support. Even if they are on unemployment, all they have to do is return to court and have the amount amended. So long as ANY attempt is being made, the payer will not be jailed and the payee will have no redress.

It is not a crime for the state to regulate child support. I personally know a woman who has been given NO support, custody of the children and it's been going for almost 2 years. He makes $80K a year and she was a stay at home mom with no professional skills. He hasn't voluntarily given up a dime in support for HIS 3 boys. THAT is the crime.

My daughter is in similar circumstances so it isn't like it doesn't happen. If the law doesn't force the bonehead(s) to pay, in these two cases, they don't.

[Kathianne]

Incorrect. Parents are jailed for not paying child support. Even if they are on unemployment, all they have to do is return to court and have the amount amended. So long as ANY attempt is being made, the payer will not be jailed and the payee will have no redress.

It is not a crime for the state to regulate child support. I personally know a woman who has been given NO support, custody of the children and it's been going for almost 2 years. He makes $80K a year and she was a stay at home mom with no professional skills. He hasn't voluntarily given up a dime in support for HIS 3 boys. THAT is the crime.

My daughter is in similar circumstances so it isn't like it doesn't happen. If the law doesn't force the bonehead(s) to pay, in these two cases, they don't.

Indeed. I was lucky in that their father really cared that people thought him a 'good father' which is why he always paid. That he caused other types of serious harm is why joint custody was taken off the table, by the judge. Now there are women that also act in such manner, they don't seem to be in as great of number. Probably because the fathers are 'working' and the kids are at home. It takes a certain type of female bonehead to walk away from her kids.

[ConHog]

I am DYING to hear our new members take on child support and why he thinks it's the worst thing in the world. This is a man running for "actual office", and apparently doesn't believe parents should be financially responsible for their kids. My ONLY issue, ever, is WAY off topic - and that it irritates me that a man MUST pay CS even if he didn't want a kid.... You know, the whole abortion / have child and man having little input. But anyway, what is done is done and at that point BOTH parents need to take responsibility.

JP - as a man running for office, which would include all financials being disclosed... I'd be very curious to hear if you currently pay CS or ever did. Additionally, were you EVER behind on said payments?

Then explain to us what the horror is in CS...

I am with you 100% on the forcing a man to pay child support if the woman decides to have the child , but not giving him ANY say so when it comes to deciding on abortion or not.

Full disclosure, my ex wife is over $50K behind in child support and will in all likelihood NEVER be required to pay any of it since my son is now over 18 years gold. Yes it's on the books, but not likely to be collected.

[LuvRPgrl]

A few caveats. What I post is relevant to Ca. The laws vary state to state, BUT they are mostly the same in each state, but not always.
When I refer to the "man", in fact it means 90% the man and 10% the woman the woman, or thereabouts.
......The real issues isnt what is ordered in court, but in fact is, what court orders the state is willing to enforce.
Divorce laws are much different today than even 10 years ago, much less 20, and the law and reality dont always match, so if you have an issue with what I post, dont
............ quote me .any laws, show me the facts of what is being enforced. Judges routinely ignore the law, and appealing is expensive.
Lastly, how the law is enforced, depends very much on who it is being enforced against, the man or the woman.

The single most important issue is being ignored, which is being proven by this thread. Visitation is soooo much more important than CS. I know, the thread is about CS, but you
cant.......... discuss one without the other, cuz it is extremely common for the mothers to refuse visitation if child support isnt paid.
Kids suffer much more from lack of a father than from a downgrade in economics.

Why is it funny? It absolute, 100% factual. Child Support Enforcement simply doesn't act on a case unless the custodial parent complains. The logic is simple. Why waste the resources prosecuting a case if the injured party doesn't care enough to register a complaint. Especially when they are swamped with cases anyway?

Its infinitaley more complicated than that.
But the issue I have a problem with is you say they act slowly when they receive a complaint about it.

Just for starters, very often women use the county services for collection, and they IMMEDIATELY jump on the case if a man misses one payment, whether the woman complains or not.. But if the woman denies visitation, the men have to spend thousands of dollars on attorney and court costs, and its a long time before they get any relief, if any at all.
.........The police refuse to enforce a court order if it entails them going into a building and removing the kids so the father can have visitation, but not a blink goes by before they are willing to go into the mans wallet and enforce CS under the threat of physical violence with a gun. And this is irrelevant if the man is a great father or bad, making lots of money or collecting unemployment.
.
And they will imprison a man for failing to pay, prison over a debt, which is unconstitutional.
You think the IRS is harsh on collection enforcement, they are kitty cats compared to the panther of Child Support.
.
They will take your passport and drivers license without hearing a word from you on why you cant or arent paying.
.I
f someone wants to get their amount lowered, it will cost them thousands of dollars, many times they dont have it. And dont give me that shit about being able to do it yourself, when a person represents themselves, there are so many technicalities and tricks only an experienced lawyer knows, not to mention the attitude and scowl the judge immedetley gets when they read IN PRO PER.

[ConHog]

A few caveats. What I post is relevant to Ca. The laws vary state to state, BUT they are mostly the same in each state, but not always.
When I refer to the "man", in fact it means 90% the man and 10% the woman the woman, or thereabouts.
The real issues isnt what is ordered in court, but in fact is, what court orders the state is willing to enforce.
Divorce laws are much different today than even 10 years ago, much less 20, and the law and reality dont always match, so if you have an issue with what I post, dont quote me any laws, show me the facts of what is being enforced. Judges routinely ignore the law, and appealing is expensive.
Lastly, how the law is enforced, depends very much on who it is being enforced against, the man or the woman.

The single most important issue is being ignored, which is being proven by this thread. Visitation is soooo much more important than CS. I know, the thread is about CS, but you cant discuss one without the other, cuz it is extremely common for the mothers to refuse visitation if child support isnt paid.
Kids suffer much more from lack of a father than from a downgrade in economics.

Its infinitaley more complicated than that.
But the issue I have a problem with is you say they act slowly when they receive a complaint about it.

Just for starters, very often women use the county services for collection, and they IMMEDIATELY jump on the case if a man misses one payment, whether the woman complains or not.. But if the woman denies visitation, the men have to spend thousands of dollars on attorney and court costs, and its a long time before they get any relief, if any at all.
The police refuse to enforce a court order if it entails them going into a building and removing the kids so the father can have visitation, but not a blink goes by before they are willing to go into the mans wallet and enforce CS under the threat of physical violence with a gun. And this is irrelevant if the man is a great father or bad, making lots of money or collecting unemployment.
.
And they will imprison a man for failing to pay, prison over a debt, which is unconstitutional.
You think the IRS is harsh on collection enforcement, they are kitty cats compared to the panther of Child Support.
.
They will take your passport and drivers license without hearing a word from you on why you cant or arent paying.
.I
f someone wants to get their amount lowered, it will cost them thousands of dollars, many times they dont have it. And dont give me that shit about being able to do it yourself, when a person represents themselves, there are so many technicalities and tricks only an experienced lawyer knows, not to mention the attitude and scowl the judge immedetley gets when they read IN PRO PER.

You are as wrong as wrong can be on this. Now I do believe that some CES employees are more sympathetic towards women then they are towards men; but you don't have an understanding of how the system works.

For many years I chaired the Arkansas chapter of a national father's rights group and became involved with MANY cases.

County employees have exactly ZERO ability to prosecute a person for failure to pay child support. They can't even send a letter. NOTHING. ANd that is true in EVERY state. Each state has a Child Support Enforcement Agency, which works in conjunction with the federal government to collect child support that hasn't been paid. A case does not automatically go to them just becuase a child support order has been issued, nor do they automatically jump on a case if a parent gets behind on child support. Not EVER, regardless of the sex of the parent. You know why? Because in say CA there are about 50K child support decrees at any one time. The state doesn't have the manpower to be eyeballing all of those cases . They rely on the CUSTODIAL parent to make them aware of a parent who has fallen behind.

Here is how the system works.

Non custodial parent misses a child support payment
Custodial parent calls county employee and complains
County employee gives custodial parent the hotline phone number for the CES
Custodial parent calls the hotline
Hotline employee asks if it has been 30 days since the last payment. If the answer is no, custodial parent is informed to call back if it gets to thirty days without a payment

Now let's assume it DOES get to thirty days.

Custodial Parent calls hotline again
Hotline asks for address of Custodial Parent and informs them that they will mail them a form to fill out requesting a case be opened. Fill out form and return
Custodial parent receives form, fills it out and returns it.
Hotline calls custodial parent to inform them that they have located the non custodial parent and send them a letter stating that they are $X behind in child support and that they have 30 days to either dispute the claim in writing or start making payments.

Now at this point one of three things happens. Either the parent disputes the claim (rare) the parent starts paying CS ( even rarer) or the parent ignores the letter (most likely)

If the non custodial disputes the claim then you're going back to court

If the non custodial starts paying CS within 30 days your case is closed unless and until they miss 30 days again and you open another case.

If the non custodial ignores the letter and does nothing then CSE takes the next step

Hotline goes through IRS to locate non custodial's employer (if they don't have an employer you're pretty much screwed as they aren't going to throw people in jail for being unemployed and unable to pay child support)

Once employer is located ANOTHER letter is mailed informing the employer of the garnishment and instructing them to deduct the amount owed in child support (up to a maximum of 25% of their net pay per federal law) from their paycheck. They have 60 days to comply.

During that 60 days , exactly NO action will be taken against the non custodial.

Now here's where non custodial parents usually show how shitty they really are and they quit that job so as to avoid the garnishment. Guess what that means? The process starts all over. Locate new employer, send letter, give 60 days to comply.

Now we are at minimum 3 months into the process and no one has went to jail. Nor even had their license revoked.

Now after that there are other options, including the state confiscating income tax refunds, lottery winnings etc etc. And those are always taken before any legal procedures to punish a non custodial.

Bottom line, as long as a parent is making SOME attempt to pay child support they will NEVER be prosecuted. Hell in many cases they aren't prosecuted even when they make NO effort.

[LuvRPgrl]

You are as wrong as wrong can be on this. Now I do believe that some CES employees are more sympathetic towards women then they are towards men; but you don't have an understanding of how the system works..

Not only is my dick bigger than yours, but I'm willing to bet that I havef more personal experience about the system than you do. What you posted above is pure bullshit. How can you say I dont have an understanding how it works, when you dont even know me.

County employees have exactly ZERO ability to prosecute a person for failure to pay child support.

Prosecute is a very vague term.

1They can't even send a letter. NOTHING. ANd that is true in EVERY state..
. A case does not automatically go to them just becuase a child support order has been issued, nor do they automatically jump on a case if a parent gets behind on child support..

Part of your problem is you dont even read accurately. I never said any such thing,I said if the woman chooses to use the county to collect for her, then they will act on failure to pay immediately.

1Here is how the system works.Non custodial parent misses a child support payment
Custodial parent calls the hotline

Now let's assume it DOES get to thirty days.

... and send them a letter stating that they are $X behind in child support and that they have 30 days to either dispute the claim in writing or start making payments..

And yet above, you stated: The y can't even send a letter. NOTHING. ANd that is true in EVERY state..

Now here's where non custodial parents usually show how shitty they really are and they quit that job so as to avoid the garnishment....

If you start with the total number of men paying child support, your number is almost insignificant.

Now after that there are other options, including the state income tax refunds, lottery winnings etc etc. And those are always taken before any legal procedures to punish a non custodial.....

You left out confiscating their passport, drivers license, garnish their paycheck, AND,,,FREEZE AND CONFISCATE THE FUNDS IN THEIR BANK ACCOUNT.
...AND, THAT OCCURS RANDOMLY IF THE MAN IS SELF EMPLOYED, REGARDLESS IF HE IS CURRENT ON HIS PAYMENTS OR NOT.


I am currently about thirty grand behind in my payments, does that make me a scumbag?




?

[ConHog]

Not only is my dick bigger than yours, but I'm willing to bet that I havef more personal experience about the system than you do. What you posted above is pure bullshit. How can you say I dont have an understanding how it works, when you dont even know me.




Prosecute is a very vague term.


Part of your problem is you dont even read accurately. I never said any such thing,I said if the woman chooses to use the county to collect for her, then they will act on failure to pay immediately.


And yet above, you stated: The y can't even send a letter. NOTHING. ANd that is true in EVERY state..


If you start with the total number of men paying child support, your number is almost insignificant.


You left out confiscating their passport, drivers license, garnish their paycheck, AND,,,FREEZE AND CONFISCATE THE FUNDS IN THEIR BANK ACCOUNT.
...AND, THAT OCCURS RANDOMLY IF THE MAN IS SELF EMPLOYED, REGARDLESS IF HE IS CURRENT ON HIS PAYMENTS OR NOT.


I am currently about thirty grand behind in my payments, does that make me a scumbag?




?

You're goddamned right it does.


And that doesn't even address the ignorant lies you are telling in this thread. County employees have ZILCH to do with child support.