Conference quokka::non_custodial_parents

    I saw a show on the local TV in Boston Mass. The program was about Dead
    Beat Dads too. Its going to be the national thing in a couple of years.
    I think that I have complained about this in either this file or
    mennotes. Bottom line. Your right, there is or will not be anyplace for
    the "Dead Beat Moms" in this program. How sexist, how blaintly sexual
    bias can we be. This is the height of it. Your face will show up coast
    to coast, in post offices, on flyers. But the women will not go on this
    program. 
    
    One of the women on the show wants men sterolized if we cannot pay
    child suport and alimony. Were is the arm bands and the jack boots. I
    have a yen for Martial music agian....
    
    Imagine your childs face looking at your picture on a wanted poster. A
    criminal? Or are we on the run cause you cannot stand living on $11 a
    week, living in a car? Gee, I donno. I am for paying what is due. I am
    not into having to live in a car, under a bridge, on someones soffa. 

   I think the term is Sexual harassment, As the sterilized society
  progresses we will find most if not all our rights usurped by the
  "lesser of two evils" decision making process. The courts being
  swamped with civil cases have given up, thrown up their hands 
  and blanket orders and decrees have become the rule. In the case
  of fathers rights nobody gives a dam, men have dominated society
  for so long that it is unthinkable to the general population, men 
  included, that we can bleed as well as everyone else. It is too easy 
  to point the finger at fathers because we have so many in our ranks 
  that are not supportive parents or are dead beat dads and many of them 
  still married. 
   When I was married I gave no thought the plight of NCP issues
  because I believed my wife and I would be CIVIL, how inconceivable
  it was to me that someone could use such tools available to her to 
  someone she loved!
   The only way to stop the tide of NCP bashing is to "unite and
  demonstrate". That is show the general population that men can no longer
  be viewed as the pay wagon, can no longer be viewed as secondary
  parent, have the qualities and capabilities to be the sole parent,
  have the same biological feelings toword their children and that they
  dam well better respect men as equal parents now as men have been 
  respected before in ever other aspect of human society except parenting. 
   It will be a long road to change the views and opinions of our fathers and 
  those before them, we need to make every step count.
 
  Mick
  

 

    I'd like to suggest those of you who "don't have a problem" with wage
    garnishment reconsider your feelings.
    
    As a NCP, I feel distanced enough as it is from my children.  Not only
    do I have 2100 miles separating us, but I have a *lousy* relationship
    with a vindictive, mean-spirited ex wife, who, by virtue of being the
    CP, is in a position to manipulate the kid's feelings about me, and
    takes every opportunity to do so.
    
    All I need now is for her to suggest to my kids that the support
    payments, which now bear my signature, are being "withheld from your
    dad's pay because he can't be TRUSTED to pay regularly himself"!!!
    
    At least, with me sending my own checks, she has a more difficult time
    bad-mouthing me to the kids... at least for support.
    
    This business of garnishing EVERYBODY's wages because some parent's
    don't pay SUCKS!  It's just like the parent who punished all the kids
    because ONE of them did wrong, and they can't be bothered to find out
    who!
    
    Additionally, wage garnishment is accomplished by going to court.  A
    costly procedure, and involves a lot of extra expense on the part of
    our company.  
    
    If it takes a court order to garnish your wages (and it does!  read the
    company's policy manual; DEC won't garnish even if you ASK them to
    yourself!) then you can rest assured it will take another trip to the
    same court, again and again, to have the AMOUNT of support changed, as
    your kids grow up, or other circumstances change.  
    
    The only benificiaries will be the legal community.  And maybe a few
    (or maybe even a LOT) of CPs.  But, I gotta tell you, folks, that
    taking care of SOMEONE ELSE'S PROBLEM, AND UNWILLINGNESS TO SUPPORT
    HIS/HER KIDS, IS NOT ***MY*** PROBLEM!  I pay my support, and I'll be
    damned if I'll stand by silently and be forced to submit to this just
    to recify someone else's problem.
    
    
    tony

Reprinted, without permission

[Toronto Star - 01-Nov-1991]

Headline: Ads to target child-support delinquents

Article:

Fathers who don't pay support owed to their children and ex-wives are being
targeted in a $1,000,000.00 public awareness campaign launched by the Ontario
government yesterday.
  "It's time we got mad about it. Because they're hurting their kids - our kids
- and they're hurting you and me," say the new poster, newspaper and television
advertisements unveiled by the Attorney-General Howard Hampton at a Queen's Park
news conference yesterday.
  And there's a message for delinquent parents, 97 per cent of whom are fathers:
"Pay your family support. There's no excuse not to."
  The three month campaign paves the way for Canada's first automatic wage
deduction for support payments, which Hampton announced yesterday will begin
March 1 in Ontario.
  The television commercials show a little girl watching sadly as toys, clothes
and, eventually, food disappear because her father isn't paying support.
The province says:
[] At least $460 million in support payments for more than 80,000 children is
unpaid.
[] About 75 per cent of some 92,000 support orders filed with the government are
in default or not fully honored.
[] Women and children have had to turn to social assistance, costing taxpayers
more than $140 million since 1987.
  The new campaign is aimed at ending the attitude of "complacency" about not
paying support, Hampton said. "One of the ways to get people to live up to their
obligations is if they face peer pressure," he said.
  Under the new payment system, parents ordered by the court to pay support
after March 1 will automatically have those payments deducted from their pay
cheques, unless they are self-employed or a judge orders otherwise.
  Spouses can opt out of the program if both consent.
  Hampton said that people who have failed to pay in the past could find those
arrears deducted from their salary.
  However, parents who work out their support arrangement without going to court
- and abide by it - will not be swept into the payment program.

re: .3

Based on the article in .4, if you pay up as agreed, you don't get f*cked by the
system.

I don't know about others, the intended target is very obvious here, another
interesting item was the fact that of the 92,000 support order's filed with the
government (SCOE handles this crap), 75% are in default or not being fully
honored. This is interesting to me because when I ran into problems last spring,
it took my ex about 10 weeks and she had me garnished by SCOE. How come the
others are still outstanding and mine was signed, sealed and delivered in no
time flat (it wouldn't of had something to do with the fact that she works for
social services, nahhhhh, tooooo easy). I should send Howard Hampton a note,
tell him to talk to my ex, she knows how to fix the 75% delinquents real fast
and solve all of Hampton's problems.


BTW, when I defaulted last spring, I wasn't avoiding my obligation, I ran into
some real serious sh*t around March. I didn't have a pot to p*ss in around then,
then again I still don't. The whole situation was revealed to my ex at that
time, she just turned around and filed multiple court orders to make things
worse. According to one of her ex friends, she didn't want to compromise or
negotiate with me at all and knew full well how much deep sh*t I was in.  She was
hoping I would get evicted on the streets, my new girl friend would dump me, and
I would disappear from her and my son's life completely. Boy was she surprised
when I managed to ride through all this despite her attempts to break me.
Revenge, my ex wrote the book on it! It's been a living hell.

    "Dead beat dads"... not all delinquency is caused by the parents!
    
    Last year literally THOUSANDS of custodial parents didn't get their
    support payments from the NCPs in MASS.  
    
    Why?  Were the NCPs delinquent?  
    
    Nope.  The State Registry that records and forwards the checks failed
    to mail them on to their destinations because that Registry could not
    afford to buy postage stamps!!!  They were broke and they sat on those
    checks for weeks!
    
    
    And who got the blame for the late payments?
    
    Wanna guess?
    
    
    t.

    I don't know how Canada is about "equal rights" and all that, but 
    this looks like a good place for a men/ncp rights group that could
    raise money to take one of these things to court.   One man alone
    can't afford the $K that it would take to take these things through
    the court system, and one man screaming alone may as well go out
    and scream into a hurricane for all the listening the "government"
    is going to do.  ACLU won't be interested unless you are a minority,
    gay, or sexual deviant.
    
    1) money to take cases into court
    2) votes to throw the &^%$#!!!s out of office.
    
    fred();

Equal Rights, yes we got them, the government can discriminate, abuse, corn hole
anyone they like in any manner. On the other hand John and Jane Public must
discriminate, abuse and corn hole each other equally.

John

    Hi All,
    
    I am a CP, a single mom (never married) and a WOMAN.  Now, I understand
    most of your feelings towards *women*, but *not all women* are like your
    ex-wives.  These laws are not being put in place because of *You*, they
    are being put in place because of the bad apples that exist out there -
    the men who refuse to pay support, disappear, etc.  There are alot out
    there.  If you are paying your support now, and on time, what is the
    big deal if your pay is garnished??  Hell, it saves you money from
    check fees to the price of a stamp!!  And I doubt it is just the MEN
    whose wages are being garnished -- I would expect it is *ALL* NCP's
    wages which are being garnished. 
    
    I had my daughers father's wages garnished because he kept threatening
    to stop paying support, paying for her medical bills, etc.  AND HE
    DOESN"T EVEN WANT VISITATION RIGHTS!!!!  HE DOESN"T CALL, NOTHING!! 
    He had decided not to see his child (let me add here that we are civil 
    to each other, we never fight in front of my child) for his own reasons 
    --- that is his choice, not mine.   I'm sorry, but the threats are what
    made me decide to have his wages garnished --- How was I going to make
    ends meet if he decided to stop paying --- The daycare alone is $105
    per week and I only get $80 in child support.
    
    I am really sorry for those of you who got screwed by your EX's, but
    please do not lay the blame on all females.  When I was 4 years old my
    parents divorced.  My dad was on of the first 400 employees at DEC, he
    made really good money and owned alot of stock.  My dad was also a very
    smart guy and when my parents went to court for the divorce, my dad
    "hid" all his cash --- my mother got nothing.  My mom was given
    custody, was able to get the house (but had to pay it off by herself)
    and very little child support.  My dad didn't pay support most of the
    time, my mother could not afford to go to court, so she took what she
    could get (my mother was a school teacher --- made very little money
    compared to my father).  It was tough growing up with little money and
    sometimes no food in the fridge, but we survived --- If you want
    someone to blame -- blame people like my father who are the ones who
    put you NCP in the position you are in today.  The women are not the
    ones who did it to you --- it is all the bad apples from the past &
    present who are doing this to you ----  If you want to change
    something, then get out there and get all the NCP's who don't pay
    support to start paying!!
    
    ** Steam off **
    
    Good Day,
    Debby
      

    Debby,
    
    	Your right 100%! EXECPT!!! There are a number of Fathers, dads, who
    are not reciving jack diddily for suport. And sorry, gotta say it. But
    there is no.... Lemme repete this. NO, provisions for collecting from
    DEAD BEAT MOMs. Of which I know of a couple thru my mens suport group.
    So, what can we say. And what can we do when a court
    system inpoverish's you to sleep in a car? Or under a bridge? Or if you
    real lucky, on someones couch? I know a man who is still collecting $11
    per week for un-employement! The ex's attorny show no mercy! Neither
    does the able body ex! He is trying to get into court to change it, 
    but you know how fast a court works when your a man trying to get 
    some justice? REAL SLOW.... 
    
    Oh, I am a CP daddy! Its great! I will never deny my daughter
    visitation with her mom over $$$. I would not hesitate running her (ex)
    through the same hoops when it comes to not paying either. :)
    
    Insofar as blaming women here. I haven't read anything that did? Just
    the stupid feminazi attitude of sterilizing us, the sexist attitudes of 
    no provisions for Dead Beat Moms, and other such stuff.
    
    Peace

    Debby,
    
    Not blaming all men???????  Aparently you haven't been in Womannotes
    lately.
    
    When the system stops being so biggoted against *men* then it will
    be a little easier.
    
    Nearly all of us in this file ( Mostly men, but a few women ) are here
    because we *want* to remain parents to our children.  If the *system*
    is so interested in collecting the child support, then why is is not
    equally as interested in protecting the rights of the Non-custodial
    parent *and* the children to maintain a relationship as well.  
    
    Why is it ok fo the *ncp* (usually male) to have to sleep under a 
    bridge even though he makes good money, but the *system* bends over
    backwards to make sure the "child support" is collected?  If the
    system is to interesetd about child support then why doesn't it do
    something about making sure the money goes to suppor the *child*
    Something like accountability.  JUDGE: "you say you mother didn't
    get your braces adjusted for over a year, but wasn't she getting
    child support and help for that kind of thing"?  My Daughter:
    "yes, but she said she had to spend that on rent and stuff---but
    she didn't pay the rent because that's why we had to move all the
    time".  SO WHERE DID THE D%%M "CHILD SUPPORT" GO!!!!
    
    I paid every dime of my child support.  The *system* fed, clothed, 
    housed, and helped her *hide* my kids on nothing but here word.
    They didn't even bother to check out what she was telling them.
    The *system* gave her a lawyer free of charge while I had to beg
    and borrow from friends and relatives and finally had to learn
    to be my own lawyer because the money ran out.  I had to go
    up against what some considered was the best lawyer in the city
    with nothing but my own wits and intelegence.  I finally was
    forced into bankruptcy.  With and income of $250/month with $150/mo
    of that going to rent I was hit for $80/mo child support ( a little
    arithmetic will tell you that that left me with $20/month to eat on).
    MEN NEED TO LIVE AND EAT TOO!!!!!  There is a large porportion of
    the *deadbead dads* who just plain *CAN'T* pay, but the *system*
    doesn't give a rat's ##s about *them* (they're just scum anyway).
    
    I took me 9 1/2 years to convice the court that I knew what I was
    talking about and get my children out of that *hell* that they
    were living in.  My oldest son is lost to me probably forever.
    He spent most of his adolecence in and out of mental institutions
    and is now a runaway and wanted by the law--AND SHE IS HIDING HIM.
    And the mental institutions agree that SHE is likely a BIG part
    of the cause of his problems.  She has been in jail twice for 
    contempt of court, but as yet has not paid a dime of the support 
    that she has been ordered to.  She refuses to work and lives off 
    the income of here husband and claims she has no income to pay 
    support with (how far would a man get with that?).  The children 
    have only heard from her 5 or 6 times in the last year.  The last 
    time she *visited* she only spent about 5 min with with the kids 
    before she stomped out because she was trying to manipulate and 
    bully me and I WON'T PUT UP WITH THAT ANYMORE!
    
    AND YET ALL I HEAR IN THE MEDIA AND ELSWHERE IS ABOUT THOSE *DEADBEAT*
    **DADS**.
    
    cold shower time!!!
    fred();

re:                     <<< Note 169.9 by WILLEE::SKOWRONEK >>>
<                         -< Stop blaming the WOMEN!! >-
<
<    Hi All,
<    
<    I am a CP, a single mom (never married) and a WOMAN.  Now, I understand
<    most of your feelings towards *women*, but *not all women* are like your
<    ex-wives.  These laws are not being put in place because of *You*, they
    
    flame *ON*
    
    Debbie... I knew I'd reply to this as soon as I read your first
    paragraph.  Let me say something, then I'll cool off a bit (or try to):
    
    Your title says "Stop blaming the WOMEN" and then you emphasize you are
    a WOMAN.  Then you say you 'understand' our feelings, towards *women*
    (insinuating, I believe, that we are painting our feelings with a very
    broad brush) in general, and claim "nota ll women" are like our
    ex-wives.  True enuf!  But, in the very next BREATH, you generalize
    yourself!  You tell us the laws are "because of *You*".  
    
    Well, I gotta tell you Debbie.  Those laws are NOT because of ME.  So,
    if generalizations offend you, then try to avoid them yourself! 
    Please!
    
    Some of us have exemplary records and conscientiously and with some
    difficulty remain faithful to our obligations to support our kids. 
    Some of us are NOT "dead beat dads".  And frankly I am damn tired of
    being lumped together with those who are!  
    
    
<    are being put in place because of the bad apples that exist out there -
<    the men who refuse to pay support, disappear, etc.  There are alot out
<    there.  If you are paying your support now, and on time, what is the
<    big deal if your pay is garnished??  Hell, it saves you money from
    
    Selfish and narrow attitude!  I have said it before and I'll say it
    again:  I will NOT have my wages garnished.  I will NOT provide another
    opportunity for my ex to deminish me once more in the eyes of my children!  
    I will NOT relinquish MY responsibility to some other person, or
    company!  It is NOT DIGITALS RESPONSIBILITY TO SEE THAT I PAY SUPPORT! 
    It is NOT OUR GOVERNMENTS RESPONSIBILITY!  It is MY RESPONSIBILITY AND
    MINE ALONE!  And I live up to it!  I get bull-shit when someone else
    says or thinks they can do it better or should do it at all for me.  It
    is not a convenience!  
    
    Your statement "Hell, it saves you money from check fees to the price
    of a stamp"  offends me!  I am affronted by your inference that this little
    pittance is even a consideration!  
    
<    check fees to the price of a stamp!!  And I doubt it is just the MEN
<    whose wages are being garnished -- I would expect it is *ALL* NCP's
<    wages which are being garnished. 
<    
    
    And NONE of them should be!  Not one single one!  If a person wishes an
    automatic withholding, or an automatic deposit into his ex's account
    then so be it.  That's just fine.  But, dammit, you will NOT deprive me
    of my own wages until such time that you can prove that I cannot be
    depended on!
    
    
<    I had my daughers father's wages garnished because he kept threatening
    <    to stop paying support, paying for her medical bills, etc.  AND HE
<    DOESN"T EVEN WANT VISITATION RIGHTS!!!!  HE DOESN"T CALL, NOTHING!! 
<    He had decided not to see his child (let me add here that we are civil 
<    to each other, we never fight in front of my child) for his own reasons 
<    --- that is his choice, not mine.   I'm sorry, but the threats are what
<    made me decide to have his wages garnished --- How was I going to make
<    ends meet if he decided to stop paying --- The daycare alone is $105
<    per week and I only get $80 in child support.
<    
    
    And well you may have.  You did what you had to do to protect yourself
    and your kids.  Fine.  But, *I* don't do what your ex did.  *I* don't
    threaten withholding support!  *I* don't use my responsibility to my
    children as a weapon against my ex.  
    
    But YOU say that because YOUR ex did all that, then some law should be
    concocted that will affect ME.  What gives YOU the right to affect my
    life?  Who empowered YOU to tell ME how to support MY children?
    
    You have a problem with your child support?  Go to court and get it
    fixed... just as you did!  But, why support a bad law that affects
    EVERYONE ELSE!
    
<    I am really sorry for those of you who got screwed by your EX's, but
<    please do not lay the blame on all females.  When I was 4 years old my
    
    Debbie... I may be wrong... but, I can't remember one single instance
    where such an accusation has been made.  THis notes file is replete
    with sad stories of how one spouse has affected another... I've added
    my own on occasion.  But, I cannot think of a single occurance of such
    a generalization.
    
<    parents divorced.  My dad was on of the first 400 employees at DEC, he
<    made really good money and owned alot of stock.  My dad was also a very
<    smart guy and when my parents went to court for the divorce, my dad
<    "hid" all his cash --- my mother got nothing.  My mom was given
<    custody, was able to get the house (but had to pay it off by herself)
<    and very little child support.  My dad didn't pay support most of the
<    time, my mother could not afford to go to court, so she took what she
<    could get (my mother was a school teacher --- made very little money
<    compared to my father).  It was tough growing up with little money and
<    sometimes no food in the fridge, but we survived --- If you want
<    someone to blame -- blame people like my father who are the ones who
<    put you NCP in the position you are in today.  The women are not the
<    ones who did it to you --- it is all the bad apples from the past &
<    present who are doing this to you ----  If you want to change
<    something, then get out there and get all the NCP's who don't pay
<    support to start paying!!
<    
<    ** Steam off **
<    
    
    Sounds like your anger at your dad and at your ex are tainting your
    perspective on what's real and what's right and what's wrong.  I think
    you should try to separate what happened to YOU with what happens to
    everybody.  
    
    Your last statement... about getting all the non-paying NCPs to pay up
    is interesting.  There might be a way.  Maybe that's a topic for
    another discussion.
    
    
    tony

    Its funny how emotions can cloud an issue to the point where everyone
   is in violent agreement, everyone wants DEAD beat NCPs to pay, CP's
   should not alienate the NCP, so why the argument? 
    I think the main issue is the method. It seams to me there are reasonable
   compromises. Unfortunately the court system uses the lesser of two 
   evils decision making process when both parents can't agree.  
   Currently a woman has more incentive to leave it to the courts
   as any lawyer can clearly see the bias and justly informs the
   client.
    The problem with AUTO garnishments is that is does nothing to protect
   the CP be it man or woman. It only punishes paying fathers for
   the faults of others. I feel good about looking at my child and saying
   I love you I support you on my own. Without him thinking I only pay because
   the law takes my check before I can spend it on myself.
    AUTO garnishments will not get deadbeats to pay, If they are working 
   and not paying they do it for other reasons (spoiled, callous). These
   people will just find another way to hide the money. The deadbeats
   that might pay as a result can still be accomplished without the rest of us 
   being lumped into a group called Garnished parents.
    This is a basic right of privilege, Like your drivers license
   you CAN drive drunk but there will be a consequence if caught.
    
 I would vote for anyone x weeks behind and no plan to make it up
 should be garnished. I have a stipulation in my own agreement that if I
 get behind I will to the work to have my waged garnished, If I don't
 I'm in contempt. I have protected my self,my child and my ex in the process.
 Auto Garnishment would take that right of decision away from me. 

>    I am a CP, a single mom (never married) and a WOMAN.  Now, I understand
>    most of your feelings towards *women*, but *not all women* are like your
>    ex-wives.

     And not all men are like your father or your daughter's father.  My anger
     is not entirely with the ex.  Most of my anger lies with the attorneys
     and judges who have created this system to take advantage of men and
     children for their own financial gain.

>               These laws are not being put in place because of *You*, they
>    are being put in place because of the bad apples that exist out there -
>    the men who refuse to pay support, disappear, etc.  There are alot out
>    there.  If you are paying your support now, and on time, what is the
>    big deal if your pay is garnished??  Hell, it saves you money from

     There should be laws to deal with NCP's who simply refuse to pay,
     but if I want my support automatically deducted, I'll go down to
     the DCU myself and have it automatically transferred to the ex's
     account.  Further, there are often reasons that support is not
     fully complied with.  Yesterday, a man that I know was in court.
     He was ordered to pay $45,000/yr. in child support.  There is just
     one small problem.  He only makes $40,000/yr.  His ex earns $63,000
     per year and he continues to give her about 30% of his $40,000.
     Unfortunately, she is in government and is extremely angry.  She
     is using her political clout as a means of destroying this man.
     No automated garnishment will help here, but the fact that he CAN'T
     comply will be used to justify this new system.

     Plain and simple, this legislation is blatent discrimination against
     men.  The most recent census was used to justify this bill.  It counted
     single mothers, how many received support, etc...  No mention of how
     many single dads there.  It sure sounds to me like someone(Jay Rockfeller
     D W.Va) has figured out that single mom's are a large part of his
     constituency and needs the vote.  After all, how can someone who
     has enjoyed a privileged life understand what it is like to not
     know if you will have a roof over your head next week.

     I want to support my child and I do pay my support.  However, it is
     excessive and leaves me less than enough to live on.  My daughter is
     getting to an age where she will begin to wonder why mom takes her to
     Disney World, buys her things etc... and dad doesn't.  Jen deserves to
     see me a a positive role model, but the excessive support will 
     probably only allow her to see me as the loser that her mom would
     like her to believe that I am.

>    I am really sorry for those of you who got screwed by your EX's, but
>    please do not lay the blame on all females.  When I was 4 years old my
>    parents divorced.  My dad was on of the first 400 employees at DEC, he
>    made really good money and owned alot of stock.  My dad was also a very
>    smart guy and when my parents went to court for the divorce, my dad
>    "hid" all his cash --- my mother got nothing.  My mom was given
>    custody, was able to get the house (but had to pay it off by herself)
>    and very little child support.  My dad didn't pay support most of the
>    time, my mother could not afford to go to court, so she took what she
>    could get (my mother was a school teacher --- made very little money
>    compared to my father).  It was tough growing up with little money and
>    sometimes no food in the fridge, but we survived --- 

     Did your dad tell you this ?  I'm sure that this could be true,
     but to me it sounds typical of a disgruntled mom who alienated
     her daughter from dad.  Most of what you say is simply not
     plausible.  There have long been federal provisions to help single
     moms collect from deadbeat dads.  All she had to do was to go down
     to the local Division of Human Services office.  Apparently, she
     didn't care enough about putting food in the fridge for her daughter
     to do so.  Then again, I look at this from the other side of the fence.

>							   If you want
>    someone to blame -- blame people like my father who are the ones who
>    put you NCP in the position you are in today.  The women are not the
>    ones who did it to you --- it is all the bad apples from the past &
>    present who are doing this to you ----  If you want to change
>    something, then get out there and get all the NCP's who don't pay
>    support to start paying!!
    
     The blame does not lie with "people like your father".  It lies with
     attorneys and judges who make, support and enforce laws that are
     created under the guise of the "best interests of the children".
     What these laws actually do is create adversary in an already bad
     situation.  Getting the NCP's to pay would only help to enforce the
     idealization that this system is working.

     The most recent census also brought out a fact that I'm sure Jay 
     Rockfeller would rather ignore.  There is a strong correlation
     between the mother not violating visitation and the fathers continuing
     to pay support.  The category that had the least amount of default
     was the situation where there was joint custody.   Bashing the other
     side is not doing anyone any good.  There will always be people who
     find a way to abuse the system.  We need to recognize the cause of the
     problem and attack it instead of attacking all the effects this
     broken system is having on our children.  We must recognize that there
     are problems on both sides of the fence and work together to change the
     system from one that only benefits the attorneys and judges to one
     that dispenses justice and looks out for the best interests of the
     children.  I can cite numerous examples where the judge simply ignored
     the law and and ordered whatever he pleased.  Having been through a
     divorce, I am scared to death of sitting in front of one of these same
     judges should I ever be falsely accused of a criminal offense.  We must
     work together to fix this broken justice system.

>    Good Day,
>    Debby
      
     Good Day?   How can I have a good day.  I almost had a stroke after
     reading this note.

     Regards,
     Gary

 ps.   Could someone please give me a reference to where they saw this
       garnishment law (US) had passed?  As far as I know it is still pending.

re: .14

>     fully complied with.  Yesterday, a man that I know was in court.
>     He was ordered to pay $45,000/yr. in child support.  There is just
>     one small problem.  He only makes $40,000/yr.  His ex earns $63,000
>     per year and he continues to give her about 30% of his $40,000.
>     Unfortunately, she is in government and is extremely angry.  She
>     is using her political clout as a means of destroying this man.
>     No automated garnishment will help here, but the fact that he CAN'T
>     comply will be used to justify this new system.
>

The above order is hard to believe, how in the hell was this decided by the
court? No system can enforce this other that put the poor stiff in jail for not
paying the total amount (this guy's ex sounds pretty mean).

As I stated in my note, the government continues to bandage the system, but
never bothers to understand the root cause of defaults in payment. Yes, there
are dead beats, but some are considered dead beats because the system put them
into a bad financial position. If your only left with $11 to live on after tax
and child support, how do they expect one to live?
                                  
Judges, lawyers are a big part of the problem and revenge seeking ex-spouses
take care of the rest. 

It's been nearly two years, I still can't afford rent, clothes, auto repairs and
other normal items. What few dollars I do have left after tax and support covers
cost of going to work, my sons visitation costs and legal costs. I am considered
lucky by my ex, at least a friend of mine let's me sleep in his guest room
instead of in my car or under a bridge. The system seems to have no problem in
causing hardship at any price.                           

    I caught the tail (tale?) end of a discussion at about 8:30 this
    morning on ABC.  Someone was being interviewed about "all those
    deadbeat fathers" who don't pay child support.  The person/group is
    sponsoring a bill before the US Congress that will require that anyone
    paying child support prove that they are current on payments PRIOR to
    getting the renewal of any Federally-required license, such as those
    for pilots, doctors, dentists, etc., etc.  Once this goes through you
    can be sure that all of the States will follow the lead and extend it
    to all State-required licenses such as driver's license, hunting
    licenses, fishinig licenses, etc., etc.
    
    <flame on>
    
    Aren't YOU glad that "we're" going after all of those "dead-beat dads"?
    
    <flame off>
    
    The trouble is something like this will sail through the legislatures
    with a minimum of discussion.  Another example of the "guilty until
    proven innocent" position of all NCPs.
    
    Steve

    A friend of mine (a lawyer) told me that the feds don't have
    jurisdiction in support laws... however, she said the feds often
    accomplish what they want in these "jurisdictional" matters by tying
    other things, (like the Federally-required license, etc mentioned in
    .17) such as federal funds given to states to that state (which, of
    course, do have jurisdiction) passing certain legislation.   
    
    Remember the 55 mph law?  That wasn't a federal law.  But they achieved
    the same effect by withholding federal funds from states which failed
    to pass a STATE 55 mph law.  You know the result:  soon every single
    state in the union had such a law.  Well, the same thing can be done
    with court ordered garnishment of your wages.  It'll have to be the
    states that do it... but the feds can force them.  
    
    
    So, what to do?  
    
    Well, I think I'll start by writing a couple of letters.  I'll plead my
    case to my state representatives and also to my congressmen.  I want
    them to know that I am concerned about all those "dead beat dads", but
    the way to fix the problem is not to penalize the rest of us.  
    
    I'd like to see us talk about this:  How can we (as a society) induce
    more NCPs to *voluntarily* live up to their obligations and
    responsibility to their children.  And, how can we effectively get our
    court system to be more realistic in their support mandates?
    
    To start us off:
    
    1.  Would it be appropriate to allow a federal/state tax deduction, or
    perhaps even a tax CREDIT for each NCP who fulfills his obligation. 
    What I mean is DON'T OFFER THE TAX INCENTIVE UNLESS THE ENTIRE YEAR'S
    OBLIGATION IS FULFILLED.  In other words, if a tax credit were allowed,
    a NCP would only be eligible to take it if he/she had paid ALL the
    support for the year... and the credit could be limited to or tied to
    the support guidlines for the state.  In other words, no excess benefit
    would be allowed.  -OR-  Perhaps the NCP paying the support could have
    tax relief, again tied to his/her having fulfilled ALL the support
    obligation.  But, since the support payment would actually amount to a
    transfer of income fromm the NCP to the CP, have the support payment
    count as taxable income to the CP?  THis would hurt some CPs, but would
    put others into unacceptable tax brackets and would reduce their
    likelihood of demanding MORE support than they actually need.
    
    In addition, the STATE/FEDs would not lose one dime from lost taxation.
    
    Just a thought or two.  What do YOU think?
    
    
    As to how to fix the legal system?  I think the only way is to have the
    guidelines (which I think are mostly pretty fair) made into LAW.  That
    might remove the flexibility from the court.  Also, make the gender of
    the NCP/CP irrelevanth.  Require the courts, by law, to observe their
    own laws against descrimination.  
    
    I have NO IDEA how to do this.
    
    
    tony

    I would like to see the laws applied more evenly towards the CP and
    NCP on every statute, for example 

    1. The penalty for non payment of child support should be the same as 
    withholding visitation or not telling the NCP about events in the child's 
    life. Clearly child support($$) and child support(LOVE) are equal. 

    2. Since the NCP has no control over how child support payments are
    spent (and this will never change as it ties into lifestyle). Then
    the NCP should have an option to garnish his wage on a pre-tax basis. 
    The CP would bears the full tax and receive the children's deduction. Other
    wise the NCP and CP must come to agreement in some other way.
      

    3. To make the laws non biased would be to deal with divorce
    in a different way then the present legal system. This current system
    is based on criminal law but with out the rules, as in perjury
    deceit and rules of evidence are largely over looked. This can be changed
    by appeal but will likely be a long process only to end much worse 
    then now " Sorry you failed to give your wife the mirander warning
    so that is not permissible evidence". 
     My suggestion would be to take divorce out of the courts entirely 
    Have lawyers and tax accounts apply formulas( the reverse would be
    putting house purchases in court (" Judge: the window shades stay, we'll 
    hear the amount of oil left in the tank next time"). Custody should go to
    the parent with the best numbers!!! only kidding maybe custody only
    should be dealt with in court, don't know the answer to that one.

     Mick

    re .14  ::GWILSON
    
    You stated that all Debby's mother had to do was go down the DSHS and
    get them to get the child support.  Let me tell you a little story....
    
    When I was first divorced, I went on welfare for a short time.  The
    Office of Support Enforcement said they would get the child support,
    which they never did.
    After I went to work, they said I had to pay them $20.00 for them to go
    after my child support. I still did not receive any support. That was in 
    New Mexico.  When I moved to
    Washington, I contacted Support Enforcement.  They wouldn't help me
    because I didn't have my ex-husbands social security number.  Then,
    when the new ruling about having the income tax refund sent to the CP
    for back child support came out, I called again.  I was told that I
    didn't qualify because I wasn't on welfare.  In 12 years I did not
    receive a dime of child support, nor did I hear from my ex in those
    years.  Three years ago my ex surfaced and my son decided he wanted to
    live with him.  I agreed due to many, many reasons, the most important
    reason being my son had the right to know his father.  So what
    happened?  My ex went on welfare and now I am paying child support to
    him.  I still can't collect the back support that is owed to me and will
    probably NEVER be able to collect it.  I choose not to go after my ex
    because it would affect my son too much.  My son is the most important
    person in my life and I won't hurt him.  Oh, by the way, my wages are
    being garnished.  I didn't have a choice.
    
    So, don't lay garbage on me that all I have to do is go to the
    government to get my money.  The system failed me miserably.
    
    Karen

    Karen,
    
    	I can empithize with your anger in your last note. But there are
    ways of channeling your anger to get what is fair and just. Your
    persistance to get justice is the most inporant word that should
    remain. One can only see how the system can screw (excuse my
    anglo-saxon) those who will let it roll them over. This is the best
    advise I can offer you. Esp if your ex is an able body man who is fully
    functional of all facilities. My best thoughts are to put the man on
    the spot. Call him on the carpet with the "How Comes". 
    
    George

    George,
    I've listened to his excuses for years.  Yes, he is an able-bodied man,
    but chooses to work as a laborer for $5.00 an hour.  My son is where he
    wants to be right now and if I went after my ex for the back child
    support my son would have to come live with me again. I won't do that
    to him.  He wants the time to be with his father and to me that is more
    important than money.  Yes, I am angry about the system.  But I choose
    not to go after my money at this point.
    
    Karen

    With the fact that if a NCP is not making the full amount of money that
    they are capable of doing you can still get a health amount of money
    out of them for child suport. Gee, I cannot understand? 

    Karen, 
    
    Depending on the law where the support order was issued, the law
    where you live, etc.  Child support becomes a *debt* which is 
    collectable by the same means as any other debt.  If your ex has
    any property to speak of, you could go after that property to
    satisfy that debt.  Another possibility is to *negotiate* via 
    lawyer or whatever means at least a reduction in your support 
    payments in lieu of you going for his throat over the debt 
    collection.
    
    As on poem I read once states:  "the mills of the gods grind slowly,
    but they grind exceeding small".
    
    Can you document your attempts to collect support from him ( time,
    place, who, etc? )
    
    fred();

Karen,

  It's unfortunate that you got caught up in the bureaucracy,
but there are federal laws mandating the enforcement of support
orders.  Possibly, the wording in my note was not entirely
correct.  I did not mean that collecting support was always
as easy as taking a ride to the local enforcement office.
You must be willing to put in the effort that it takes to
accomplish the goal.  Sometimes that will be easier than
others.

  I realize that you are concerned about the effect that going
after this man may have on your son, but should the time come
when the moment is right to go after him, I wish you the best
of luck.

Regards,
Gary

    Re .20

    Karen,
     I can certainly emphasize with you, I too have tremendous legal
    weight I could throw at my ex and even members of her family.
    Yet doing so would only help me, and do little for my son. Again
    the legal system failed us both, in your case I see little to be gained
    by going after your ex now for the back support, if he has the child
    he needs to money. Its sad that this legal system takes a
    bad system and makes it worse, its sadder still when people use it as a 
    vehicle to reek revenge over and over again. 
      I applaud you for doing the right thing in an area where the right 
    thing can be so hard to see.

    Mick
    

    Thank you everyone for your support and suggestions.  When I first
    found out that my wages were going to be garnished for child support I
    wrote everybody I could think of, up to and including President Bush
    and his wife.  I wrote representatives in both North Carolina and
    Washington.  I wrote the federal office of child support enforcement
    and the attorney generals of both states.
    
    What it would take for me to collect my back child support is the
    following:
    
    1.  Get a change of jurisdiction from New Mexico, where my divorce was
    granted, to Washington state.
    
    2.  After obtaining that, go to Superior Court here in Washington and
    get an order for garnishment of his wages.
    
    3.  Take the court order to the office of support enforcement and let
    the  wheels of justice turn slowly.  
    
    I am so skeptical that any of this could happen.  It just seems like
    everytime I turned around I was told no, you can't have it.  It may be
    worth a try, but  I really feel it is futile at this point to try and
    obtain the money.  If I could be very specific in the court order as to
    what I want, so that my son wouldn't be effected by it, I might be
    tempted.  All I would really want at this point is $20.00 a week and
    his income tax refunds.  I can't hurt my son.  Him and I have been
    through some horrible times together and I won't hurt him.  He is the
    main reason I don't go after my support.  Living with his father has
    been really good for him, I have seen alot of improvement in his
    attitude, school performance and in his life in general.  I can't
    and won't jeopardize the progress he has made.  I feel going after the
    support would.  Do you understand now George?
    
    Karen
    
    

re:  <<< Note 169.27 by RIPPLE::KENNEDY_KA >>>

stuff deleted......

>    main reason I don't go after my support.  Living with his father has
>    been really good for him, I have seen alot of improvement in his
>    attitude, school performance and in his life in general.  I can't
>    and won't jeopardize the progress he has made.  I feel going after the
>    support would.  Do you understand now George?
>    
    Karen,

This is something that all the money and tea in China cannot buy your son. I
certainly support and understand your choice.

John
    
    

    wish some of Karen's attitude would rub off on my ex.  
    
    she's claiming i am $2000 BEHIND in support when she knows (and I can
    prove) I am thousands ahead...!  
    
    some people don't know when to stop!
    
    t.

    Karen,
    
    	Yep, I understand. If it is owed to you go for it. So long as you
    can prove that you would not be hurting them or impoverishing them.
    I wish you luck, and remember. If it is revenge, dig two graves. One
    for your victum, and one for yourself.
    
    Peace

    Karen, if indeed you would like to collect the back child support I
    would encourage you to file with the State.  The state has a positive
    incentive to collect the back support -- it actually makes money for
    them rather than costing them taxpayer $$.  This is why with the new
    child support enforcement systems coming on line we will see a BIG
    increase in the amount of $$ collected and distributed.
    
    Up to you, but if you choose to do it you should be able to recover the
    money.
    
    Steve  

    Karen,
    
    	To help make it go through faster and without sounding like
    a mother scorned. Why not say to the courts is that you wanna set up a trust
    fund for your sons college education? Or default it to his wedding when
    he finds Mrs. Right. There are a mirid of tax insentives that you can
    also look at in this reguard too that might make you smile around tax
    time.:)

    I've been thinking about this all morning.  This is what I think I am
    hearing from all of you.
    
    1.  Go after the child support.
    2.  Make sure my motives aren't revenge.
    3.  Put the money aside for Patrick (George, wanna send some of those
        incentives off-line?)
    4.  That I am entitled to the money and I should collect it from him.
    
    My thoughts are:  I have a hard time going after what is rightfully
    mine.  Am I using my son as an excuse to not stand up for myself one
    more time?  Am I using my son to enable my ex to be irresponsible
    again?  Why shouldn't my ex suffer the consequences for his actions? 
    Why am I protecting him from those consequences?
    
    You have stirred up quite a bit in me.  So much so that I picked up the
    phone this morning and called a friend who is an attorney.  I left a
    message.  I can't get past that this is a risk, a big one.  The
    possible consequences of *MY* actions scare me.
    
    Karen
    
    p.s. Mods, maybe we should move the last few notes to another string,
    since it's not really dealing with the base topic?

    Karen,
    
    	Risk is always a big scarry. With risk are rewards. Risk also bring
    out the gambler in you. Its great when you win one, maybe two. Growth
    also is in the game of risk taking. We grow from loss's as well as
    wins. 
    
    	It would be best to consult a CPA with your questions on
    incentives. I know that they exist, best before you commit yourself.
    Find out all the possibilites, then develope your stragity around that.
    Good Luck!!!
    
    	Remember whats the worst thing that could happen? You fail? 
    Its not a life or death choice. Is it? Thats a Dale Carnige quote. 
    Great class. If you can get into a class I recomend it to all. 
    Best thing that happened to me!

    It's not the failing that scares me.  It's alienating my son is what
    scares me.
    
    Karen

    Karen,
    You could wait until your son leaves for college or whatever, then
    go attach any and/or all of "theex"s assets.
    fred();

    That is a problem that is over come with common sence, lots of good
    talk, and most of all love for your child. Tell him the truth. That its
    going for his college ed. Or his dowlry.
    
    I too walk a fine line of what is being said by my ex to our daughter.
    Always keep your cool, as in keep your hands flat, your jets cool, and
    your mouth shut. You will be suprised at how someone else will set
    themselves up to fail.
    
    George

    Well, my friend called me back this afternoon.  He said that we would
    have to file a motion with the court.  That costs $78.00.  Then we
    would have to other paperwork (didn't go into the specifics) and that
    paperwork would be served on my ex in North Carolina.  IF my ex didn't
    contest Washington having jurisdiction, then the court would reduce the
    amount of child support due and owing to a judgement.  Then I would
    have to take the judgement to either a collection agency in North
    Carolina or the Office of Support Enforcement at which point they would
    begin garnishment of his wages.  He said that the process would cost me
    $300 - $400.
    
    This may be projecting into the future, but whaddya wanna bet that as
    soon as my ex is served those papers, he somehow manages to lose his job
    (he's quite good at getting fired) and ends back up on welfare.  He
    goes back on welfare, I refuse to pay any further support to HIM and
    guess what happens to my son.  He comes back to live with me.  Which
    isn't where he wants to be.  He begins his acting out again and we go
    through the same hell we went through 3 years ago.  
    
    I can bet money that the above scenario would happen.  No, I think I'll
    pass.  My son is doing fine where he is.
    
    Both my attorney and child support enforcement have told me that I have
    next to nothing chance of getting my back child support when he turns
    18.  Only if Patrick wants to come live with me, voluntarily, will I go
    after back support.  And as long as I live in Washington that won't
    happen.  
    
    Thanks again for all the support.  Yes, I'm entitled to the money, but
    right now the risks are too great.  I can't chance it.
    
    Karen

    George,
    Money isn't the point here.  My son's happiness is.  He is happy where
    he is at.  If I go after my money, I'm jeopardizing his happiness.  I
    won't do that.
    
    Karen

    Agree, without a doubt. I was making suggestions to handle seperation
    of what needs to be done without connection of emotions. Sometimes its
    necessary. Nothing more and nothing less. 
    
    Peace

    
    Karen,
    
    Only you can make that decision.  Actually I admire you for putting
    the needs and happiness of your child above a $$$ value.  I have
    known and seen so *many* CP's that would literally sell their children
    into hell if that's what it took to get revenge on the NCP.
    
    One Earth Peace
    fred();

The TV commercials have started and so far I have only seen the same one about
three times. They show a little girl in her room surrounded by her toys,
clothes and food. The toys, clothes and food slowly disappear while the
announcer is delivering his verbiage. Finally the little girl is sitting in an
empty room with only her stuff teddy bear as the commercial ends.

I kind of find this very misleading and distorting the whole picture around dead
beat support payers. They make it sound as if the NCP is walking in and stealing
the child's toys and clothes. I fail to see how existing toys and clothes would
disappear if child support is not being paid and thus is misleading the public
to the real truth behind dead beat support payers. The food disappearing can be
true to some degree if the CP does not make enough to support self and child.

I use the term dead beat support payers only because that is what the government
wants the public to see NCP's as. They do not want the public to see the real
problems with the system and make it appear this will fix it only because NCP's
are dead beats and are rolling in money (the old bottom less money pit image).

This whole campaign to me seems a waste of tax payers money and does not address
the real problems faced by CP's and NCP's alike. Instead of looking and fixing
the very system that is causing the problem, more bailing wire is added to an
already bad system. If the government knows that 75% of the support orders are
in default, would that not indicate a problem within the current system? Surely
the 75% is not made up of 100% dead beats who deliberately avoid paying child
support of their own free will?

It would appear another letter writing campaign is in order here.

John

    Locally here in New Hampshire, a friend of mine, who got custody
    a year ago. Or former NCP, still hasn't gotten a farthing from his ex.
    The bottom line is that as he was calling the local DHS chapter to 
    get her to pay her fair share, the remarks were that there are more
    Deadbeat Moms than dads as a stat! Inagine that? Gender bias?
    Preconsived notions? Nawwww! 

George,

Naw, there is no gender bias, we only think there is bias. It's all in our
imaginations.

John

    Why does it so often seem, that this issue of non-paying NCP's, is
    argued as to whether it be more moms, or more dads, than the other way
    around.  It really doesn't matter, unless there are dads or males that
    are concerned or angered by the image of what the media presents.  If
    that is a fact?   And by this bickering of whose the worse dead beat
    sex, is really defeating.  I think if more males or dads want more
    respect and appreciation for their role in their children's lives, then
    perhaps it should all begin in our very youngs' childhoods. 
    
    If fathers are to be more than mere "bread winners", then perhaps a
    reconstruction of that image can be attained by more appearances of
    fathers in their kids' sports, shows, schools and as single parents.
    
    I think it would help our growing society of single parent homes, if it
    became acceptable and more the norm, for these "divorced" children to
    still retain emotional and financial support  from both their parents,
    regardless of where or with whom the child lives.
    
    I went to my daughter's Christmas music show last night with her dad. 
    (her dad and I are reunited, but not married right now, and who knows
    what's to become of it)  Anyway, we're about mid-way from the stage in
    the audience, and it is very noticeable that the majority of this
    audience had attended this show single, that is without their partners. 
    And most of these parents were moms.  It just seemed very sad to me.  I
    wondered, did these kids' dads want to come, didn't care or perhaps
    weren't even connected to their kids' lives anyway?
    
    I don't understand the men in our society.  (and in order to satisfy
    those men that claim, they are not the majority) Why does it seem that
     so many fatheres can so easily dismiss their offspring?  Is it the
    prejudice that they receive in our courts, therefore, giving many
    fathers the "already" head trip into believing that they are fighting a
    losing battle.  Is it just "safer" and more simple to just forget?  Is
    it more simple to just take up with another woman and her children and
    make new ones, and try again at being a family?  Or is it really in our
    genes and instinct, as some say?
    
    Just some things to ponder........
    
    Cindy
    
    I wonder if moms and generations before aren't somewhat a cause of the
    ill effects of the ill-responsibilities of many men in our society?

Seems to me this is an issue of attack and counter-attack of broad stereo-types,
generalizations, and rebuttals.  Often people who are on the defensive go
on the offensive.  When attacked with slurs and slanders, the usual reaction
is to attack back.  So the whole thing just spirals upwards, with everyone 
getting angrier and angrier until somehow, the balance is upset and the pendulem
swings the other way.  Then it all starts again.

Statistically, the greater number of "deadbeat" NCP's may be men.  But then,
probably the greater number of NCP's may be men also.  But does running a
public awareness campaign that identifies male NCPs as being "deadbeats" solve 
the problem ?  I think that is the objection here.  People begin to equate 
divorced, non-custodial men with being scoundrels who have abandoned their
parental responsibilities.  Now the people who support the ads may say that
they are not commenting on all male NCP's, but unfortunately, it is part of
the way the human mind works to make generalities rather than treating each and 
every case, each and every individual as a specific, unique case or person.

But already, see what is happening in this small microcosim of the world - 
this notes file.  In a defensive-offensive reaction to the ads, someone has
countered that the percentage of "deadbeat" female NCPs is higher than that
of males.  And someone else has countered with, if father's expect to be given
greater recognition and respect as parents, they need to be more involved with
family life.  Now probably someone will counter with anecdotal examples of
fathers who are very involved in their children's life, and mothers who are not.
Or fathers who would like to be more involved but societal expectations and
pressures make it difficult.

What does all this accomplish ?  I don't think it accomplishes anything but
bitterness and more of the same type comparisons and generalities.  There must
be a better way to address the whole issue of divorce, children, custody, and
support then trying to make one group or another, one sex or another appear
better or worse than the other.

Leslie

re: .46, .47,

Kidding aside from .45, we are preoccupied with gender, money and ignore the
real source of the problem. The dead beat campaign which the government here is
shoving down our throats, is preoccupied with gender. They make statements like
97% of the delinquent parents are fathers and maybe it so high because most
NCP's are fathers and thus of course the percentage will be high on gender. So
as they focus on gender, males are made out to be the bad guy. Maybe the 97% is
really on 20% of all males paying support while the remaining 3% of the of
delinquent parents is 80% of the females who pay support. No matter what data
you have collected, it can be quoted in many ways to mislead the public.

By only hearing the fact that 97% of all delinquent parents are fathers gives
you a very dim view of male NCP's. But as you read on and see the rest of the
data, the story changes and the 97% is not all that bad if it's only 20% of the
male support paying population, while the remaining 3% is 80% of all female
population paying support. Are statistics wonderful how someone like the
government can use what they want and discard the rest to create a biased view
and yet quote true percentage. It's all in how the information is given out and
how people perceive the numbers.

Ignoring all the gender sh*t, what is the real problem? Obviously the government
hasn't a f*cking clue what the problem is. They only thing they see is that,
child support is not being paid as ordered. Who cares if Jane is ordered to pay
$500/month in child-support but only takes home $800/month in pay? Who cares if
Jane is entitle to a life of her own and must be able to live and be self
sufficient but can't on $300/month? Who cares that the courts award unrealistic
child-support amounts based on the judges whims and bias?

So the government decides, who cares about Jane, let's suck the old pay check
dry for all we can get. After all, it's in the child's best interest to see your
parent sink down a rat hole they cannot get out of.

As NCP's, it is time the very government bodies that create these money wasting
campaigns, wake up and fix the root cause of the problem. This being the
damn legal system which placed these individuals in such a precarious spot, that
the only option after some time is to default on child-support. The legal system
which makes it to hard to seek a variance when personal circumstances change
($$$$$). The legal system which charges so damn much, even if you do come out ahead,
you loose because your up to your eye balls in legal fee debits. Separation,
divorce, child support and child access is a very lucrative for the legal system
and financially/emotionally damaging to the CP, NCP and children.

I personally do not care if it is male or female or other. Unless one is brain
dead, if 75% of the 92000 support orders the government has on file are in a
default state (69,000), obviously there is something seriously wrong. Surely the
whole 69,000 defaults are not all real dead beats, avoiding child-support any
way they can. Sure there are some real dead beats, but that's another separate
problem from the rest of the population of this 69,000 defaults.

I truly believe that NCP's and CP's need to join forces and knock some sense
into the government on this whole issue of child support.

John

    re: .48
    
    Right on John!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    Karen

    Very well put, John!  We need to find a way that allows *everyone*
    involved to successfully get on with their lives!
    
    Lesa 

    .46
    
    Your right. Dead beat sex's. Bottom line. No provisions for Dead Beat
    Mommy's in this dead beat program. Nothing. Yes, lets get together and
    do something positive, constructive and for the benifit for all. But
    untill many others feel the way you do, I am sorry, it looks like
    status quo. I am tired of people finger pointing calling the men NCP a
    bunch of lazy rasputians. The who court system views it that way and
    its sad but the reality of stereotyping. And sorry, but if the the
    world wants to listen to stats created by women for women trying to
    stuff some consept down our throats your going to get some of us who
    are not going to take it any more. And if the issue is a bunch of angry
    fathers bitching about their ex's, beacuse the ex's beau has better
    vistation rights than the natural father then thats the way it will
    soon be. Sorry folks, the hand writing is on the wall. And one should 
    read these sign post if they want to live in some sort of peace with
    themselves.

>As NCP's, it is time the very government bodies that create these money wasting
>campaigns, wake up and fix the root cause of the problem. This being the
>damn legal system which placed these individuals in such a precarious spot, that
>the only option after some time is to default on child-support. The legal system
>which makes it to hard to seek a variance when personal circumstances change
>($$$$$). The legal system which charges so damn much, even if you do come out ahead,


  The government isn't about to do anything to change the system.  You must
remember that the current state of our legal system was caused by attorneys.
Their main concern is to perpetuate their own existence.  They do this by
putting attorneys in the legislature to ensure that the laws that are written
to increase litigation, not to ensure justice is served.  Once in the
legislative branch, they find themselves with an additional responsibility,
that of not increasing taxes in order to maintain a positive image for the
next election.  This is done by ensuring that they keep people off welfare
by passing the financial cost onto NCPs and the emotional costs onto the
children of divorce.  

>you loose because your up to your eye balls in legal fee debits. Separation,
>divorce, child support and child access is a very lucrative for the legal system
>and financially/emotionally damaging to the CP, NCP and children.

That is exactly what the problem is.  Divorce is too lucrative. There was a
recent effort in our state to stop the pro-se divorce litigation.  Why would
this be done ?  Because it is costing attorneys a great deal of money when
someone can file a Supreme Court appeal for $31.00 that would have cost
in excess of $10,000 had it been prepared by an attorney.  Currently, everyone
is guaranteed equal protection of the law under the US Constitution.  If you
can't afford an attorney, the loophole they use is to allow you to represent
yourself.  Does it make sense that you, with no education or background in law,
can represent yourself, but it requires special permission from the court to
have someone competent in law, but not licensed as an attorney represent you ?  
If the court truly guaranteed equal protection of the law, then each person
going before the "honorable" court would be guaranteed an attorney but it won't
happen because then abusing justice would no longer be lucrative.


>I truly believe that NCP's and CP's need to join forces and knock some sense
>into the government on this whole issue of child support.

 I agree with you wholeheartedly, John and suggested the same thing myself
back in .14, but I have found a common thread in each NCP rights forum that
I have participated in.  That thread is apathy.  Having been there myself,
I suppose there needs to be a period of mourning.  But that can't last
forever.  Most, if not all NCP's would answer, "nothing" if they were posed
the question, "What have you done to promote NCP rights over the past year ?"
There needs to be a massive concerted effort if things are going to change.
That effort needs to be at the federal level to avoid state-hopping by CPs
and it needs to address all the NCP/CP issues not just the support. 

Gary

Thank you all for your kind words, while I was on a role, I sat down the other
evening after work and put my DEC terminal to some good use after hours. By time
I was done, I had four pages of pretty much the same theme as in my previous
note plus some. This is the second time I have written our provincial government
on a topic in my life.

If your interested, I can extract the letter and post it here. In some ways,
it's more focused toward our system in Ontario, Canada, but the problems are
very much the same else where in North America and possibly in other parts of
the world.

This is my initial attempt to enlighten the government that CP's and NCP's alike
have their own unique problems with child-support. Focusing on one side of the
issue does not cure the real problem we all face. It was addressed to our
premier of the province and copied the Attorney-General and two of our other
political party leaders. I have learned from my first letter campaign by
accident, to copy the other political parties. You seem to get a much better
response and action than just a mere stock form letter response.

During another issue around auto insurance here in Ontario, I am still get
various responses and documents even after 6 months of my initial letter. I was
even sent a copy of the new plan to improve the system after the initial idea of
government run auto insurance was abandoned (the main purpose of the letter
campaign). I was asked by the Minister to read and return my comments on their
new proposals. I was certainly surprised to have gotten so much feedback and
asked for further comments.

I hope this new topic about NCP and CP problems will get the same kind of
attention from our government.

John

re: .52,

My fight has only just began, I am certainly not going allow the government to
get away with band-aid solutions to problem we all face. If we can get the NCP's
and CP's here to put up a common front for change, we may have a chance. Going
it alone as just an NCP will not change their minds or bring about change.

Your point about government made up of lawyers, this is where it gets tough. By
asking for change in their lucrative turf, your asking a closed monopoly to be
nice and stop making money on emotional victims of separation and divorce.

If we don't try, nothing is gained, if we try, we have nothing to loose.

John

    John,
    
    You should send a copy of your letter to the local "news" agencies
    as an "open" letter to the government.
    
    fred();