Pantagraph.com | News | 'Deadbeat dads' get a choice: Pay up or give up hunting

Note: All views and opinions expressed in reader comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of the Pantagraph or its staff.

summerbreeze wrote on Sep 14, 2008 3:36 PM:

" This individual has no shame! This is the least that should have happen to him turning in his license to hunt. He prey's on his children daily I guess that why he likes the sport so well "Hunting". And not to mention we tax payers foot the bill for his "Game". "I say lock him up underneath the jail and thrown the keys away"!!! "

sophie wrote on Jul 22, 2008 6:34 PM:

" Do you know that over $772 BILLION are owed to America's children? This site is dedicated to all the parents who are owed support (child support & spousal).
wanteddeadbeats.blogspot.com "

HD wrote on Apr 9, 2008 12:40 PM:

" If you dont want to be a parent with someone, dont have children with them!!! That seems easy enough for me. Although keeping it in your pants must be too difficult! "

94mustang5 wrote on Apr 9, 2008 11:55 AM:

" Putting people in jail only makes it harder for them to earn the money to pay for their obligations. Once the jail time is complete, it could be argued that their debt is paid. This would not help their children. I hope the tax rebates are indexed to child support payments. "

lizzie wrote on Apr 9, 2008 8:14 AM:

" To Growing up 70's

Deadbeat Dad's and Deadbeat Mom's are deadbeats because they aren't taking accountability for their own behaviour. Nobody "made" them that way, they chose to make those decisions that gave them that label. "

robcoltor wrote on Apr 9, 2008 6:35 AM:

" Im sick of hearing about Deadbeat dads, there are quite a few women out there that are deadbeat moms. My ex wife owes me over $5000. and the state does nothing but talk about deadbeat dads. "

growingup 70's wrote on Apr 9, 2008 5:45 AM:

" sometimes women are the reason there are "deadbeat" dads. how about the woman who lies about being on birth control? I know lots of women who have kids just for child support. Then there are men who are laid off or get fired and they are not smart enough to get the child support order changed and end up owing thousands even though they were unemployed. guess what? it doesn't matter because the government will still go after him and the gold digging baby making machine will pursue also. greeeaaaaat system. "

jipsi wrote on Apr 8, 2008 11:07 PM:

" Touchstone, Soothsayer: I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing that out to me...
It appears I didn't give the words "total", and then "percentage", the amount of attention I SHOULD have, the first time! Mea culpa, Mea culpa...
"

Annie Oakley wrote on Apr 8, 2008 6:39 PM:

" ok, what about the guys who don't hunt? don't fish? there are plenty of those. child support enforcement doesn't do crap for you if you aren't on the system in some way. the working parent has to pay out the nose and then lucky if he/she gets anywhere anyway. lock their butts up. they aren't paying anyway. make it a felony like other states have. i think they will start paying, don't you? "

Touchstone wrote on Apr 8, 2008 2:21 PM:

" jipsi,

I didn't state that there weren't deadbeat dads. I stated that the total number of deadbeat dads was greater than the number of deadbeat mothers, and that the percentage of deadbeat mothers was higher than the number of deadbeat dads. Statistically speaking, that means that mothers ordered to pay child support are more likely not to pay it than fathers who are ordered to pay it.

See soothsayers' URL reference. "

lizzie wrote on Apr 8, 2008 7:42 AM:

" Leverage. Leverage is needed to force those who refuse to support their family. Hunting is just one form - there have got to be others.

"

soothsayer wrote on Apr 8, 2008 7:28 AM:

" Touchstone was partially correct and partially incorrect re: the gender split on deadbeats. The percentage of deadbeat moms is greater than the percentage of deadbeat dads, but it's not "twice as many".

Check out this link www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-225.pdf for the actual facts from the U.S. Census Bureau. "

jipsi wrote on Apr 8, 2008 1:32 AM:

" Touchstone, you wrote: "While the number of fathers not paying full financial support is greater than mothers not paying. The percentage of "deadbeat" moms is more than twice the percentage of deadbeat dads. ""

That's a load of crap.
Definition of "deadbeat":
dead·beat 1 (ddbt) Slang; noun; 1. One who does not pay one's debts. ...
adj. Not fulfilling one's obligations or paying one's debts: ie: a deadbeat dad.

So just HOW is "Fathers not paying full financial support" NOT the mark of being a "deadbeat" dad?
Your "logic" makes no sense. Perhaps it just sounded clever to you, at the moment... Tsk.

"

LOL Liberal (:-D) wrote on Apr 7, 2008 10:45 PM:

" Are you kidd'n me? First they don't let unstable mental cases carry guns and now they're picking on deadbeat dads. Don't they know their Constitution? Next thing ya know they will be com'n to get my RPG launcher. Commies! "

something to think about wrote on Apr 7, 2008 8:06 PM:

" They can't go hunting? Are you kidding me?

How about putting them in jail? If there is a court order why are they still walking around free?

Anyone who doesn't pay for the children they are legally responsible for is just selfish, immature, and irresponsible. These people need to feel what it's like to go without, and going without a hunting license isn't cutting it. "

Touchstone wrote on Apr 7, 2008 2:42 PM:

" Our country is being ripped apart at its core - the family - and it's driven by money. States get matching funds for what they collect, so the states have incentive to collect as much as they can. That propgates the thinking that mom should get custody and dad should foot the bill. The prevalent thinking places alienation from one parent in children's minds.

It's not a gender issue. It's not a question of which parent is the better parent. Every child has two parents and they need both parents. Each parent can bring different qualities to their children's lives.

Granted there are parents, fathers and mothers, that avoid suppporting their children as fully as they can. The number of both that do support far outweidhs the myth of "deadbeats."

While the number of fathers not paying full financial support is greater than mothers not paying. The percentage of "deadbeat" moms is more than twice the percentage of deadbeat dads. "

rachelbuesking wrote on Apr 5, 2008 5:18 PM:

" Believe me, I WISH she was actually a good mother, and i wish we could know that in our heart of hearts she is doing everything she can to make the best life for them possible, but that simply is not the case. And when my step-children come to me and tell me about all the broken promises she has made to them, and how she makes them eat foods she herself will not eat, it breaks my heart, and it angers me. I have loved those kids even before I ever met them, and that is why i seem so upset. She finds the time and money to go to Chicago,(for unknown reasons) and take yoga classes, and buys food she tells the kids they are not welcome to, when they dont even get the $10 a week allowance she has been promising for over 2 years. It simply is not fair, especially to those children, who are helpless to defend themselves, nor to my husband and myself, who can only hope and pray the courts will someday see the truth. "

jipsi wrote on Apr 5, 2008 8:54 AM:

" to rachelbuesking: Then I stand corrected.
Your husband's ex (and the mother of his children) sounds like a nightmare on heels.
I will defer, then, that there are always the odd exception or two to the rule... "

summerh2o wrote on Apr 4, 2008 2:34 PM:

" The message that I seem to read over and over is a lot of "I" and "me".....it's just that as hard as it is financially for the custodial parent, it is much harder for the child. Either they don't know why the other parent doesn't want anything to do with them, they don't know what to do with the Mother's Day or Father's Day school project (depending on which parent is a no show). There are emotional and mental scars that cannot be denied or forgotten. The custodial parent(s) want to be acnowledged for being selfless in taking care of the child(ren) 100%.....please understand that some of the posts sound extremely selfish. I hope your child(ren) do not see this side of any of you. "

sassygirl91308 wrote on Apr 4, 2008 1:25 PM:

" My fiance's ex wife does not pay child support to the 3 kids he has custody of...and has not paid a dime in the almost 3 years he has had custody does that make her a dead beat parent for not contributing? In my opinion YES. I have 2 kids and both their dad's pay child support so when my daughter gets new things or my son gets new things how do we address the jealousy issues that the other 3 have when they dont get anything? Am I suppose to take my child support for both kids and divide it up over 5 kids? "

rachelbuesking wrote on Apr 4, 2008 1:17 PM:

" We have called DCFS and they started making monthly visits to the house when they found the house unfit as it was covered in animal feces, and her brother was abusing my stepson. They forced her brother to move out, so now she takes them to her moms where he now lives. Thats how much she cares. She even made her own son pay her back, for his own birthday present. I've received messages and phone calls from her friends, inciting trouble. This is not a mother or woman we're dealing with, but rather someone who uses and abuses any and everybody she comes across for her own gain. Hence the reason she denies visits whenever she wants. Nothing she does is in the best interests of those children, but rather her own. She is a compulsive liar, and teaches the kids to do the same. She is not someone i would EVER want raising my kids, thats why we are suing for custody. "

rachelbuesking wrote on Apr 4, 2008 1:11 PM:

" To jipsi: I am not one to make unfounded judgments, or rash decisions especially when it comes to children. But we are talking about a woman who had 3 different children by 3 different fathers in 3 years time, only one of which was my husbands. But my husband is still raising her daughter as his own as am I. She works only a part-time job, while collecting food stamps, public aid, and government housing. She quit her $12 an hour job because they found out she was abusing FMLA. She uses the child support to pay for her trips out of town(without the children). They are not fed healthy foods, and their clothes are always falling apart when we see them. Every time she denies visits we do report it, but nothing is ever done. "

jipsi wrote on Apr 4, 2008 3:33 AM:

" (cont.)
And claiming the custodial mother is a "deadbeat" just because you are unhappy with your husband's custody arrangement (however "unfair" it may strike you) does NOT make her, in fact, a "deadbeat". If she is breaking a law, report it. If not, then you cannot claim she is anything but a custodial mother raising her children with the financial support of their father (your husband).
The "next" wife or girlfriend will ALWAYS have strong, almost ALWAYS one-sided, opinions on this.
Remember, the CHILDREN are the important people in this tragic modern-day tangle of relationships.

A "deadbeat parent" is, by definition, a non-custodial parent who refuses or evades their financial obligations in the shared support of a child, leaving the custodial parent to be the sole provider.

Try to keep your emotions from clouding your reality; AT LEAST preface your "feelings" with an "I feel" or "it is my opinion" or "It seems like".
It's only FAIR.
"

jipsi wrote on Apr 4, 2008 3:31 AM:

" to Rachelbuesking: You wrote: "There are just as many "deadbeat moms" with custody as there are "deadbeat dads" without."
WRONG. Just because you are personally affected by an exceptional "reverse" side of the child support/custody issues DOES NOT MAKE what you "feel" to be FACT.
There are NOT "just as many" deadbeat moms: that "hat" is worn by FAR MORE NC fathers than mothers (look up the numbers; I'm tired of researching FOR those too lazy to do so themselves, but here's a quick fact: "...over 75% of the nation's "single" families being headed, overwhelmingly, by the MOTHER, only 10% are headed by a custodial father." from an article by Wade C. Mackey, PhD.)
Therfore, your "math", or deductive reasoning, cannot be applicable. (cont.)
"

rachelbuesking wrote on Apr 2, 2008 2:35 PM:

" This is a link to a website we have found for a petition that people are trying to get passed through Congress in order to change the way our judicial system works when it comes to non-custodial parents. Having custody of a child does not mean you can use that to serve your own needs, nor should it mean one has more rights than the other. We are all guaranteed Equal Protection and Equal Rights under the Constitution of the United States of America. There are just as many "deadbeat moms" with custody as there are "deadbeat dads" without.
www.petitiononline.com/usncpr/petition.html "

rachelbuesking wrote on Apr 2, 2008 2:26 PM:

" I am a stepmom to 2 children who currently live with their "deadbeat mom". She receives $650 a MONTH in child support, but it is never enough. She denies visits on a whim, and uses the child support to pay her own bills. Where is the EQUAL protection for the fathers? My husband does not even make enough to support himself financially without my help, yet the childrens' "mother" is working a part-time job, has bought a house and has 2 cars. The kids show up with old raggedy out-of-season clothes, and hardly ever want to eat the things we fix for them because its not junk food. She has even gone as far as trying to get an "order of protection" against us both, (Which was denied) simply out of spite. The laws are clearly prejudiced against all fathers wether good or bad. Their Constitutional rights are being violated on a daily basis. "

Townie here... wrote on Apr 2, 2008 12:19 PM:

" I just can't believe that the desire to hunt is so strong that it's the reason this man paid up. He wouldn't do it because it was court ordered from the divorce or his wife asked him or his kid asked him...? He did it so he could still hunt...Huh...guess I just find that weird. But, I'm not a hunter. "

summerh2o wrote on Apr 2, 2008 9:50 AM:

" He moved in with so many women over the years, I have no idea how many step-mothers I've had. I gave up contact for a very long time - due to my mothers harrassment. Then I tried to connect and it didn't work. I gave up contact again - this time by my own choice. Now when I see him it's like looking at a stranger. I have a teenage son that he has never gotten to know (his loss). I have loved him and I have hated him. The point is that because he didn't pay when I was growing up, there was a lot that I did without. My mom sometimes didn't eat so I could. My grandparents paid for school, I didn't go on all the field trips, no sleepovers, no birthday parties, etc. I appreciate that my mom did what she could on a nurse's income....with no child support from a true deadbeat. "

summerh2o wrote on Apr 2, 2008 9:39 AM:

" For all of the people (both sides) complaining about what they aren't getting financially. Please keep in mind that your children see what you go through and they will appreciate it in the end. No matter what - please don't bash the other parent or encourage the children to. I am an adult of divorce, my father was ordered to pay $25 a week....he quit his job but always had money to sit in a bar. Some weekends he never showed up, and if he did we would spend our time together with him at the bar and me standing on a chair at a pinball machine - at 5 years old. I'm probably lucky to be here, but was too young to realize it. I saw my parents fight, and I heard them argue so divorce was the best thing. He had a great job....callibrating scales at the weigh stations and he threw it away. He also threw away the children from a previous marriage, whom I rarely got a chance to see since they lived with their mother. (cont'd) "

oldbebop wrote on Apr 2, 2008 9:13 AM:

" In 1972 I was one of the first men to get my children. Tried to get child support but it was next to impossible. The judge's thought that because I was a man I could support my children better than a woman. Sounds crazy but that was the mentality of the day. I've seen it all over the years. The one thing that still is wrong in our system is the Mother or Father that pays support but is not allowed to see their children needs working on. The parent ends up spending thounsands of extra dollars to fix the problem and nothing is ever done to the parent who made the mess and used the children. The court system still has flaws in it. And as long as it does the children will be the victims. "

soothsayer wrote on Apr 2, 2008 6:55 AM:

" The reason I say that dads are systematically shut out of their children's lives.... Standard child custody / visitation arrangement ordered by the family court is mom gets kids full-time, dad gets them every other weekend plus one day a week for three hours after school. So about 95% / 5% split of physical time in favor of the mother. Then if and when mom decides she wants to take the chidlrena nd move out of state, the court looks to see how much time dad has with them. Hmm.... only five percent... conclusiopn: it won't materially affect the chidlren if I let mom take them and leave, so OK, they can go. Then the Social Security Act reimburses the state and county for the percentage of CS it collects compared to how much was ordered. So there is a perverse incentive to make CS as much as possible, regardless of the NCP (dad's) ability to pay. Nationwide, according to the US Census Bureau, moms still win custody 85 percent of the time, plus or minus 5 percent depending on jurisdiction. "

soothsayer wrote on Apr 2, 2008 6:49 AM:

" To Justmythoughts.... The "Tender Years Doctrine" is what determined legal and physical custody of chidlren from the late 1800s through roughly 1970 or so, depending on which state you lived in. The doctrine stated in so many words that mothers should get custody 100% of the time because (paraphrasing) "that was the law of nature". This principle held true pretty much regardless of the facts. An easier way to summarizet he doctrine is "Mom good, dad bad". This remained unchanged until the late 1960s when today's "best interest of the children" standad started getting som attention. But courts are slow to change their mindsets. They always lag behind reality, and precendent (past decisions) count for way more than they should. So today, even though the "best interests" doctrine is what is on the books, the "Tender years" doctrine is still the operating principle of the family courts. More in my next post. "

myopiniononly wrote on Apr 1, 2008 8:52 PM:

" Before my husband had custody of his child he didn't have squat for visitation rights. There were no holidays for 8 years. just every other weekend and 4 hours once a week in the afternoon. This did not change after the child started school my husband lost out on his visits. The mother would pick the child up 4 hours early every visit, because she had custody. My husband didn't even get Christmas with the child when the mother left the child with a grandparent so she could be gone to another city for the holiday. Roadkill1965, you are a lucky man to have had your child so often. But unfortunately there are a large number of both men and women out there on both sides of the situation who give their like sexes a bad name. The children deserve better. The courts do not think about the children. They focus on what they think is fair for the parents, more often the mother. Or they are too lazy to go after the child support. And they certainly will not force the ncp to get a job. "

roadkill1965 wrote on Apr 1, 2008 7:51 PM:

" Why is it you assume a guy is has minimal visitation because he's the NCP? I have 50% custody of my daughter (actually more than 50% if you count the times her mom drops our daughter off with me to go partying), yet I still have the dreaded NCP title. The state has to designate one parent as the NCP (almost ALWAYS the dad), so they have someone's wallet to pilfer. I pay my daughter's expenses with me AND when she's at her mom's. I saw somebody ask why there is no accounting by the CP for money they receive. AMEN! It would be so easy to do. Food stamps are issued like credit cards and can only be used to purchase essentials - why can't child support? If that was the case, at least I wouldn't have bought my ex's boyfriend a really nice set of golf clubs. Anyway, why am I responsible for paying for her house, utilities, and vehicle? Isn't that HER responsibility? I don't mind contributing toward my daughter's expenses at her mom's house, but her mom should at least bear some of the responsibility. "

JustMyThoughts wrote on Apr 1, 2008 12:28 PM:

" To soothsayer: How are men "systematically and intentionally shut out of their children's lives by the state"? What are you referring to? "

soothsayer wrote on Apr 1, 2008 8:07 AM:

" It would be nice if the playing field were even and both dads and moms had a reasonable chance at getting custody of children. Unfortunately, tha's nowhere near the case in today's family court system. Thanks to a little known but pervasive legal doctrine called the "Tender Years Doctrine", moms win about 90% of child chustody, and dads only win about 10% (i.e. extreme cases where mom is an alcoholic, abusive, drug addict, etc). Although I don't agree with it, I don't find it very surprising that in some cases men who are systematically and intentionally shut out of their children's lives by the state eventually give up and flee to another state. The system is horribly prejudiced against fathers. "

myopiniononly wrote on Apr 1, 2008 5:45 AM:

" to jipsi, I think you are the one missing the point. The artical was actually about child support. Yes they focus more on the dads but the true problem is child support. There are great moms and great dads out there. There are rotten moms and rotten dads. You, jipsi, are really starting to show just how much you dislike the male race. Lets focus on the real problem at hand and that is all the kids who need the support. By the way I am not only the wife of a custodial father that does not receive his child support but I was raised by my mother who seldom ever received her child support. I know the struggles of both. I know what it is like to be a child who is told no you can't have or do this because there is no money. The child can grow up to resent both parents. Children do not have the capability to understand why there is no money. "

jipsi wrote on Apr 1, 2008 1:24 AM:

" to Hurried_Hwfe: Your post opens with: "All this about dads and nothing about moms....."
Ummm, WRONG...
IF you had read all of the posts up to this point (instead of scanning the recent handful) you would see this aspect of the "deadbeat parent" subject (moms, too) has definitely been discussed here.

More importantly, that it's NOT a running topic because the article we're commenting on is specifically about the much more common "deadbeat DADS".
It's called staying "on topic".

"

myopiniononly wrote on Mar 31, 2008 10:57 PM:

" I am glad someone else is talking about deadbeat moms. I don't want to take away from the good mothers who struggle. My point is only to make the playing field equal and aim at both sexes. thanks hurried hwfe. I want to give credit to all good dads ncp and cp's. "

valentine62 wrote on Mar 31, 2008 10:18 PM:

" From a mom who has been thru it all with not getting child support!! Kids are now grown, still owed over $20,000. Will never see it. He works for cash, files no tax returns, never has. Didn't know how we were ever going to make it, little food etc. But we did make it without him. I am the one with all the good memories of MY kids first dances, their graduations and the honor of walking MY daughter down the aisle at her wedding this year. It takes a lot of faith and prayer, but all you moms can make it and be proud of yourself for doing it. Good luck to all!! "

HD wrote on Mar 31, 2008 10:11 PM:

" TO: jipsi, I understand its hard to read or pick up on, but sometimes when people say "you" they are referring to an abstract person, not someone in particular. I only pretexted my message with "to: HRPuffinstuff" because he/she was who I was responding too... I know all of this could be much too confusing for you, but I think in time when you are older you will understand. "

Hurried_Hwfe wrote on Mar 31, 2008 8:34 PM:

" All this about dads and nothing about moms. My sons has his kids. She gave them up. No help at all from her. The courts do nothing. There is no way to collect from a deadbeat mother!!!!! Think about that. There is no comparison. She doesn't visit except when the mood strikes. "

kimlearn wrote on Mar 31, 2008 1:32 PM:

" I think that it is great that finally that the abscent parent is being made responsible. I am a nurse and for years we have had to declare if we owed child support. I read some concerns that what happens if the money is not spent in the correct way, the way that I see it, in the long run it still increases the childs basic needs being met. "

lizzie wrote on Mar 31, 2008 11:42 AM:

" To Just My Thoughts -

I wish all divorced parents (moms & dads alike) had that attitude. There would be a lot less messed up kids because of it.

My mantra is this: Regardless of how I feel about my kids' Dad, he is still their Dad. That will never change. I want their feelings about their Dad to be as genuine as possible with as little influence from me as possible. He will do one of two things: 1. Have a great bond with them by being positive and loving or 2. Be so hateful and angry it will eventually drive them away. I keep hoping it's number 1 - the kids will be better for it.

"

Catfish wrote on Mar 31, 2008 8:08 AM:

" To Whatevercple:

Well, what you believe is inaccurate - go online to renew a hunting or fishing license and you can enter your SS# and your personal info comes up. If they didn't have your SS# in their computer how would that happen?

(Nope, don't owe child support...never have) "

Anchor wrote on Mar 30, 2008 4:28 PM:

" to Justmythoughts - there is a lot of wisdom in your words. It is VERY hard to pay support and TRUST it is being spent in the best way. The kicker is, some times it is and some times it is not....either way there isn't much of anything that we can do about it....getting fired up about it does not help...staying focused on the things you CAN do and doing them well is SO key. There are a TON of great Divorced Dads out there...don't let the situation or your emotions turn you to the DARKSIDE, guys. Stay focused, stay informed, and know your rights!! "

jipsi wrote on Mar 30, 2008 10:40 AM:

" to JustMyThoughts:

Would that all NC dads were like you...
Your children are fortunate, and I'm sure their mother considers herself blessed.
By working just as hard "after" the marriage/relationship to keep things "together", despite the divorce, yours is STILL a "family", just living at separate addresses.
Bravo... :-) "

JustMyThoughts wrote on Mar 30, 2008 6:40 AM:

" (cont.) Few things affect a child’s opinion of you as much as the opinion their mother holds of you. Hating or resenting a child’s mother is a fast-track to being hated and resented by a child, and honestly, you’ll never heal as a person unless you can move on.
Be a responsible and loving father, take care of your kids and ensure they have what they need in life, treat your kids and their mother with the respect they deserve, and for God’s sake see your children as much as you possibly can! Dad’s that won’t pay support or do so grudgingly, your actions and attitude tell your kids much more than you think. Don’t be a loser, be a father, and more importantly, be Dad. It’s the best job on the planet.
"

JustMyThoughts wrote on Mar 30, 2008 6:40 AM:

" What could possibly more important than your kids? I’m a divorced dad and I pay my child support happily. When we divorced, I fought those thoughts of “how do I know how she’s spending it”, and I fought hard. That line of thinking only betrays your own resentment toward your ex-spouse, it has nothing to do with your kids, you (and more importantly your kids) are better off if you get over it. And besides, what does it matter? A house, a car, food, bills, clothes, everything benefits the safety, well-being, and life-style of your kids. Here’s a fact of life, dads. There are two important relationships in your kids lives that define what it is to be a dad. First, your relationship with your kids and the way in which you live your life. Second, the relationship you have with your ex. Divorced or not, you and your ex still teach your children how to behave. (cont.) "

whatevercple wrote on Mar 29, 2008 9:14 PM:

" I dont believe money should be a factor at all in child custody case. I have not a cent and am a hard working individual, And i gaurentee that my children were taken care of all there lives. The poorest in life are the richest in love in 75% cases. It breaks my hear to see any man or women deny there children because they dont wanna finacially support them. Its not about money,, its about caring and loving YOUR child enough that u would give them everything u got or ever did get. AND I get my child support,,, a hug and kiss daily, or I love u mom. DEADBEATS have no room in our lives. "

anchor wrote on Mar 29, 2008 4:37 PM:

" Jipsi - I think the point (though poorly, poorly made) is that siring/birthing a child does not automatically make a man or woman a good parent. The family court court system is dramatically tilted in a woman's favor on many fronts, including custody determinations. It is my opinion that more consideration should be taken as to which parent would be the MOST fit to raise the children in a custody dispute. Money should certainly be A factor but not the only factor. "

jipsi wrote on Mar 29, 2008 2:43 PM:

" Apologies: my first post, in this group, was supposed to begin with "To normalguy (and HD): you are truly a sad case.
HD, You are making posts referencing the wrong posters..."

My copying and pasting should have been more careful. "

jipsi wrote on Mar 29, 2008 2:39 PM:

" (cont.)
Lastly, NOT a WORD of my discussions have been "whining" (get your ears and head checked); deadbeats are legally OBLIGATED to foot their share in the raising of their children, whether they choose to be an active part of their lives or not. I've managed almost two decades without the deadbeat's presence, but, as I said at the beginning of my posts in this topic, it's TIME he stepped up to the plate and made things RIGHT by AT LEAST helping with their college.
It would do you good to read ALL comments in this topic before spitting out useless and rhetorical taunts and not know what (or to WHOM) you're talking about... "

jipsi wrote on Mar 29, 2008 2:37 PM:

" (cont.) Then, to suggest I, the mother, TAKE and SELL my kid's hard-earned luxury to pay household bills and "quit whining" is HALLMARK of a man who selfishly believes women should "take care of the kids like my Mother did and shut up".
My Mother suffered through raising six kids AND a dying marriage and she never complained, either. However, although I loved her (God rest her tired, tragic soul) I would never want to "be" like her and subsist on a TENTH of what I now make, as that is NOT strength, but weakness and an inability to strive for BETTER. I took classes, worked hard and put myself on the ladder for a six figure income ONLY to lose that career to a car accident that literally broke my back (which surgeries can't fix).
And I STILL raise my kids by myself, while the NC would rather spend his money (and our childrens' due) on booze and cars he'll never drive while shacking up with yet another ignorant girl to avoid being traced.
Yeah, that's REAL "strong" of him.
I've got more strength in my pinky finger...(cont.) "

myself wrote on Mar 29, 2008 2:31 PM:

" Child support is just another display of how parents in this country are not willing to accept the responsibility of their actions. If your children aren't important, than what is. Even in a divorce, 2 people should at least be able to keep the court out of their child's lives. But no. Vendiction and greed, the American way, take over. Grow up and act like it. It's your kid, you handle it. "

jipsi wrote on Mar 29, 2008 2:21 PM:

" normalguy, you are truly a sad case.
You are making posts referencing the wrong posters (for instance, HRPuffinstuff did not "lose her kids" to her ex; read back, and see that was SOMEONE ELSE's pair (or three? of posts) and showing your ignorance again and again when you throw up illogical retorts: if you had READ more thoroughly, you would have been able to UNDERSTAND that the "half million dollar man" with the yachts, Mercedes, etc. was paying CS but could be doing MORE to "level" things out for his children. You implied HE should have been given custody PURELY on the fact he was rich in comparison to the mother: SHAME on you. A good MOTHER is a thousand times more necessary to a child than a busy socializing "daddy" with a lot of expensive "toys" who would probably leave the kids with a nanny 90% of the time anyway.
Further, I believe you ARE a deadbeat yourself, because only that kind of man would BEGRUDGE his son the PS3 the boy worked all summer for and paid for himself. (cont.) "

HD wrote on Mar 29, 2008 10:39 AM:

" HRPuffinstuff: If she commits adultery that is a huge case for you to win custody and she will be paying YOU. (I know this happens because it happened to a friend of mine). If she won custody, perhaps YOU did something wrong. "

normalguy wrote on Mar 29, 2008 8:32 AM:

" yes, a ps3 is not an expensive game, which of course its main value would be to be played on an hd tv, which im sure you dont have. and you were lementing the fact you couldnt give your 16 year old a better car. embrace life, your garden, your children and quit the whining. you can say your a stand up and deliver woman all you want but your boo hooing belies the truth. Strong women, like my mom who raised 5 kids with out a husband, on a tenth of the assistance available to you (this was the 70s) to her your just embarrassing. "

normalguy wrote on Mar 29, 2008 8:21 AM:

" well lizzie, it seems that your husband didnt want full custidy of his children...i mean afterall it wouldnt have been your selfishness that made them stay in a two bedroom apartment , driven around in a beater car, while they could have lived with half million dollar a year man, nice cars, vacations, and seeing you on weekends. mmm "

dipip wrote on Mar 29, 2008 6:19 AM:

"
forget the hunting license. Take deadbeat dads drivers license. "

whatevercple wrote on Mar 28, 2008 7:19 PM:

" hey catfish,, is all your child support paid and paid on time? Because last time i knew they didnt keep your ss# on file unless u are a deadbeat. I think that when a father goes to court and theres a child support order and a father gets better education and makes more money then they sould fess up to it so they can pay for the rise in economy just as everyone else does. "

dkopatches wrote on Mar 28, 2008 4:24 PM:

" Deadbeat dads make a bad name for those who are paying dads. My husband pays child support for two children by too different moms. They are married, both not working and refuse to. One living separte from her husband on foodstamps. The other is on SSI using the system for what it is worth. He pays CS and healthcare (they don't use it). We have the children 46% of the time and the judges will not lower theCS. We fight with the courts and they don't care. It is all about the woman, not men. "

jipsi wrote on Mar 28, 2008 12:12 PM:

" to normalguy and good ole boy: Both of your posts only show that a.) neither of you bothered to READ or UNDERSTAND mine (as in, we have NEVER received a DIME of CS yet!) before your purely rhetorical 'boo-hoo' comments and/or b.) that my last remarks hit a nerve in that you recognized yourselves in "our winner"? and c.) that you have a "problem" with intelligent women who are not afraid to "stand and deliver" so resort to "i know you are, but what am I?" type jeering.

There was no "blathering": I may talk at length, but "foolish" is not in me.
There's no "blaming": we've been BETTER OFF without the NCP (but he's obligated by law to provide his share of financial support!).
My "choices" have been EMPOWERING ones: I NEVER "gave up" on my parental responsibilities, learning how to cope with living frugally.
My kids are anything but "entitled": they have a strong, positive role model in me, have learned early-on they don't need expensive toys to make them happy; they've also learned earlier than most the lifeskill of earning those "extras" by hard work and perseverance. "

....... wrote on Mar 28, 2008 11:55 AM:

" While I don't think it is ok for either parent to ditch their financial responsibility, maybe women should stop putting themselves in these positions. Don't remove yourself from the work force and get an education. Times have changed, marriage isn't necessarily forever, be better prepared to handle things on your own should something happen. "

lizzie wrote on Mar 28, 2008 11:40 AM:

" Let me give you an example of "evening the playing field" here:

My ex makes almost half a million a year. I stayed home to raise children. When he filed I couldn't find work because one of the kids was going through active cancer treatments at the time and nobody would hire me because of scheduling conflicts.

Being out of the workforce for 8 years, when I finally found employment, I started at ground zero; my income is approximately 24,000 a year and I am educated.

I am the custodial parent. Is it fair to the kids that we should live in a 2 br apt with a beater car when their Dad drives a 90,000 Mercedes, has a sports car, lives in a 6000 sq ft home and vacations in exotic places? Child support has sort of evened the playing field. We have a modest home in a safe neighborhood and a reasonably priced car that is safe to drive.

I know I am fortunate because he pays his support and takes the kids on his weekends. There are problems sure; that isn't one of them.
"

lizzie wrote on Mar 28, 2008 11:07 AM:

" An example of "evening the playing field" here:

My ex makes almost half a million a year. I stayed home to raise the children. When he filed I couldn't find work because one of the kids was going through active cancer treatments at the time and nobody would hire me because of scheduling conflicts.

Being out of the workforce for 8 years, when I finally found employment, I started at ground zero and my income is approximately 24,000 a year. I am educated.

I am the custodial parent. Is it fair to the kids that we should live in a 2 br apt with a beater of a car when their Dad drives a 90,000 Mercedes and has a sports car to boot, lives in a 6000 sq ft home and vacations in exotic places? Child support has sort of evened the playing field here. We have a modest home in a safe neighborhood and a reasonably priced car that is safe to drive.

I know I am fortunate because he pays his support and takes the kids on weekends. There are problems, but that is not one of them. "

lizzie wrote on Mar 28, 2008 10:34 AM:

" TO BIG BROTHER

Boy are you wrong. Wrong Wrong Wrong! Moms have to have cars to drive their kids places like school. Child support helps that and ensures that the car is SAFE. Child support helps "even the playing field" so to speak so the kids aren't on welfare. Child support helps pay for the car so I can get the kids to and from school and extracurricular activies. The child support I receive goes to paying for those activities, putting healthy food on the tables and occasionally going out. The child support I recieve ensure that my kids are in a safe home in a respectable neighborhood with a good school system. And yes, the child support also goes towards family oriented vacations.

That attitude is so ignorantly narrowminded. It's people like you who make the system difficult. "

HRPuffinstuff wrote on Mar 28, 2008 9:38 AM:

" Catfish: Actually, I had the same thought you had. It's scary to know that your SS# is out there floating around for any criminal to snatch it up and live their life at your expense. "

HRPuffinstuff wrote on Mar 28, 2008 9:37 AM:

" Normalguy....are you actually suggesting that Jipsi's kids don't deserve to be supported by BOTH of their parents? Seems to me that Jipsi is doing the best she can with what she was given. And for all of you normal guys out there, if you are wondering why women lump you all into the same group, you can thank "Normalguy" for advertising his callousness and selfishness. There's a reason why GOOD women hate guys like you, it's because if something were to happen, i.e. condom breaks, birth control not 100% effective, etc, you'd pout because she refuses to abort, and because of THAT refuse to have anything to do with YOUR kids life. And, if the guy isn't even willing to play catch with his kids for a few hours, or contribute financially to their care, then it's doubtful he'd be willing to take the kids into his custody, care for them as a parent should (as Jipsi does), and >gasp< use some of THEIR money to provide for the every day expenses that children accrue. "

HRPuffinstuff wrote on Mar 28, 2008 9:15 AM:

" cont...Turns out, there's no one that will be able to satisfy my ex. He quickly got bored with his 19 year old, and moved on to another young one that would at least be old enough to drink. When that didn't work out, guess who wanted to be a "part of the family again"?! It's not as cut and dried as you like to make it seem. And Jipsi's situation really isn't all that unique. It is more common for the deadbeats to be the dads - but maybe that's because it's more common for the mother to retain custody. I don't know what makes a deadbeat become a deadbeat. I, for one, could never live with myself if I abandoned my children emotionally and financially. "

HRPuffinstuff wrote on Mar 28, 2008 9:15 AM:

" HD, if you found out your spouse was not actually working late for overtime money that the family never saw, but was really out with someone of the opposite sex, half their age, and spending YOUR family's money on this homewrecker, would YOU stay and try to work it out? A marriage needs to be built on trust - would YOU trust anything your spouse said or did after doing something like that to you and your children? For the longest time I blamed myself for the divorce, but then I realized that while I wasn't perfect, I did the best I could to keep us a happy family. Heck, I even overlooked many of his inconsistent stories because I didn't want to confront that we would never be a whole family again if I chose to find out the truth. cont... "

Catfish wrote on Mar 28, 2008 7:50 AM:

" I have no problem with catching deadbeats and extracting money from them. What I DO have a problem with is having to provide a SS# to get a hunting or fishing license, and the state keeping that number in a DNR database. In this age of identity theft I think the state should run me through a check and once I'm found to be a fine, upstandinng citizen (well, not a deadbeat anyway) they should delete the record of my SS#. As an ex-state employee I have little faith in their ability to protect this info from a good hacker. "

good ol boy wrote on Mar 28, 2008 7:02 AM:

" jipsi, your are correct and with your case if I was the NC I would say just sign the papers and I will take the kids and give them a better life. You would want whats best for your kids wouldn't you? If you can't handle it with the CS your getting turn the kids over because in a lot of cases the NC could handle it without any support from you!! "

normalguy wrote on Mar 28, 2008 6:24 AM:

" well jipsi your constant blathering of the choices youve made, blaming some guy who isnt forced by the state to give you money. boo hoo. Your sense of entitlement being passed down to your kids is infuriating. why should he be given any car on his 16th birthday? Your son is 16, put down the ps3 and go to mcdonalds and work( free food). get the before school paper route. Buy his own car. nobody owes you anything in this world, but maybe you owe your kids a better role model than what weve all been treated to reading here. get over yourself already. "

jipsi wrote on Mar 28, 2008 2:58 AM:

" Here's OUR "winner":
He shows pics to mutual friends (and anyone else at the bar), telling them he "can't see them" because the Mom "is a b**** (wrong. Out of the last six years he contacted us once, to ask, out of the blue, if he could take them out-of-state to visit his relatives for a few weeks that summer. Are you kidding?? A flat out abduction waiting to happen. I DID suggest he drop by, play catch with them a few hours. He never showed up.
He tells his family he wants to see the kids but I've changed my number; I tell them we just talked on the phone last week and he said he was too busy when I asked if he'd visit them on their birthday!

FAMILIES, if your NCP relative is telling you similar things about his "ex", consider the VERY REAL possibility he is LYING to you. He just wants YOU to think he's the "good guy", not know the truth (that he really doesn't want anything to do with BEING a DAD, except when it comes to making people feel sorry for him and/or buy him a drink.) "

jipsi wrote on Mar 28, 2008 1:38 AM:

" Anchor:

My kids buy their own games with money they earn (mowing, working summers in field jobs). They know not a cent more (than the internet connection) of the household budget can "go that way".
The last time they took older games in to a trader, they gave ME the money so we could get groceries one tough week.

Anything else?
:-)

I once dated a guy so gun-shy (his last girlfriend had all but DESTROYED his confidence, and trust in others) he literally ruined "us" because of his constant "fear" I was going to lie to him, steal from him, sneak around, give his dog away... I got tired, frankly, of having to keep convincing him I wasn't "like that".

That applies here, in this issue (CP vs NCP, deadbeat vs the long suffering single family head-of-household, etc.), too.
See, "Bad" gets around, while "Good" is the boring rumor no one wants to spread...

Thanks, Anchor, for listening and acknowledging there ARE good custodial parents who DO need that Child Support, and DO need to see the "deadbeat" step up to the plate, for the RIGHT reasons. "

HD wrote on Mar 27, 2008 10:48 PM:

" I have an idea?! Keep it in your pants and you wont have to pay child support!!! Or make your marriage work and you wouldn't have to worry about 'forgetting to pay your payments'. I know both of these are pretty insanely crazy ideas.... but it might be crazy enough to work! "

anchor wrote on Mar 27, 2008 8:52 PM:

" jipsi - you have a point...not all women are alike. Also your situation is unlike the MAJORITY of "single mothers" who do get or are due child support, so why make the comparison? You appear to be an exception to the rule.

And PS3 (plus games) would be about 20 - 50 weeks of food on your apparent budget. "

jipsi wrote on Mar 27, 2008 7:49 PM:

" to myopiniononly: Not to nitpick, because I KNOW there are a few examples of "deadbeat moms" out there, too, but this particular article was on "Deadbeat dads" (see the article), so this is the discussion many of us have been commenting on. 99.9% of the readers here KNOW a "mom" can be a deadbeat, too, and that the current laws are skewed when it comes to handling this...skewed because it is NOT so common. For those dealing with it, that must be frustratiing beyond belief.
But most of the commenters here are discussing the NC dad issues because the article posed the child support enforcement issues for "deadbeat dads". No one here is "beating" anyone up; we are just "on topic"...
It's a hot subject, all the same, either way.
Deadbeats parents are a blight on the earth. Period.
"

jipsi wrote on Mar 27, 2008 7:36 PM:

" Anchor:
internet connection? Yes, my boys internet-game (free, they're on PS3) to their hearts' content (Mom gets to share the connection)...
clothes? NO (everything of mine's over five years old, and that from a thrift store)...
food? I make $30 a week feed the 3 of us...
a night out here and there? ARE YOU KIDDING??
Cell phone? We SHARE a tracfone, about $20 every 2 months...
Hair appointments? My oldest cuts my hair in the kitchen for me...
Makeup?? I live DANGEROUSLY (LOL): everything's over 7 years old.
"and the like?" Probably NOT. :-)

I don't drink, don't smoke, can't travel, haven't been to a MOVIE in five years, we eat food grown in our garden, my only "Hobby" is writing, reading etc. We lead a really boring, simple life.
You can't assume "all women" are the same, Anchor.
Some of us really ARE living on proverbial shoestrings.
And the "fall" can happen to ANYONE.
I made $65,000 a year in 2001 before a car accident and spinal/nerve injuries pemanently disabled me.
I've managed to STILL take care of me and my family on almost a TENTH of that former income, the past seven years. "

myopiniononly wrote on Mar 27, 2008 5:33 PM:

" We have to build bedrooms because the house we could afford was only a two bedroom. They are required to have bedrooms, this meant a dewatering system because the basement started to leak. Another large bill monthly. My stepchild is in basketball. I don't know about Bloomington but here that means $75 b-ball shoes and activity fees, school fees, drivers ed fees, permit fees. There are sprained ankles, flues, braces, and other medical fees. None of which she has to pay. She doesn't even have to pay $40 per week. A paper route would cover that. those fees are for just one child. I support that child and it is not mine. I love him as if he was and he deserves better. By the way there is no public assistance.
"

myopiniononly wrote on Mar 27, 2008 5:32 PM:

" My husband got custody of his child. every time we try for the back support she gets a lawyer (she pays him) and goes after us for more time with the child only to give up some of what she already had. It costs us more in lawyer fees than what she is owed. she is threatened with jail, goes back to court twice to prove she is paying, they shut the case and she stops paying again. No we can't put 100 % on this child we have tree others. We have to feed 6 people, clothe them, keep a roof over their heads, provide water, electricity, gas, and internet as schools require a lot of homework be done this way. we both work a good paying jobs but food and electric take two weeks of my pay and mortgage take two weeks of my husbands. My water bill is tree times what anyone in Bloomington pays a month. I know this because we lived in Bloomington. Cont... "

HRPuffinstuff wrote on Mar 27, 2008 5:03 PM:

" Continued...I remember trying to budget out everything that needed to be paid each month, and I had no idea how I was going to make up the difference for what needed to be paid, and the money I had to work with. Now, if children were only as expensive as 25% of my income, then perhaps we could have lived much easier, and I wouldn't be as resentful to my ex for having done absolutely nothing to help care for the children he helped to bring into this world. But, whether you choose to believe it or not, children cost much, much more than merely 20-30% of one's income. But, you know some people, they refuse to give up even that much to help and make sure their children live a comfortable childhood, instead of one consisting of the cheapest possible dinners every single night, and not getting to see mom nearly as much as they should because she's out working two jobs to (barely) make ends meet. "

HRPuffinstuff wrote on Mar 27, 2008 5:02 PM:

" If it's okay with Jipsi, I'd like to answer "Anchors" question as well. See, single mothers often go without lots of extras in order to ensure their children have what they need. Back when it was my full time and part time income ONLY (before my current husband) that was paying for the life and well-being of my children, not once did I ever enjoy getting a new outfit, or a stylish new haircut. All of my clothes were hand-me-downs, or clothes I bought before the divorce. As far as make-up, well, you have me there. There were some times when I would "splurge" on a $7 bottle of foundation, and the cheapest face powder I could find. As far as living in a home and having a telephone, it really wouldn't be responsible of me as a mother to live in the mission with my kids, or to just go without a telephone in a house where kids live. Internet? Yeah right - besides my ex-husband fought tooth and nail for the computer (loser). continued... "

dmackmom wrote on Mar 27, 2008 3:59 PM:

" Child support is used to assist in providing for the well being and welfare of the child. That includes - shelter (i.e. rent, mortage payment, gas/electric, water, etc) food, clothes, education(books, registration fees, tutoring, day care, babysitter, etc), entertainment(a movie with friends, pizza, swimming, etc.) extra curriculars(sports, sporting equipment, fees, music lessons, musical instruments, etc), not to mention the $4 here for the class field trip, the $3 here to get into the basketball game, the $45 for a yearbook, the $100 a month insurance premium increase when they turn 16 and get their license, even if they don't have their own vehicle to drive, I could continue but I think I'm making my point.....it completely cracks me up the morons on here that think Custodial Parents are living the "'good life" off of the NCP 20%! Buck up people and take care of your resposibilities...so many times it is more of a battle of not wanting the ex to have something than really focusing on the purpose - YOUR KIDS!!! "

Anchor wrote on Mar 27, 2008 2:28 PM:

" jipsi - It is good to see you have not lost your talent for embellishment. Are you sure you use 100% of your income towards your kids? What percentage of your income is spent on you? I am sure only pennies...nothing for internet connection, clothes, food, a night out here and there, cell phone, hair appointments, make-up and the like...But you probably don't have any of those expenses, as you said 100% of your income goes to your kids. I don't know about the rest of you NCPs but I would have taken custody of my kids in a heartbeat...but the system doesn't work like that. It is decidedly slanted against MEN...So forgive me if I don't fawn all over your SACRAFICE of having custody of your children and the great pain and suffering it must cause you to provide for them. Some of us would gladly take our kids with NO assistance from the other side at all. "

jipsi wrote on Mar 27, 2008 1:49 PM:

" HRPuffinstuff: We were, no doubt, thinking along the same lines at about the same time there.
Glad I'm not the only smart cookie here who knows basic math... ;-) "

HRPuffinstuff wrote on Mar 27, 2008 12:51 PM:

" Mixdown, while you haven't been through it, you couldn't possibly know - and so I will give you the benefit of the doubt on this one. For one child, support from an NC's is merely 20% of that parent's income. 20%!!! While the custodial parent's see 100% of their income go to caring for their child. The 20-30% of income that gets sent (sometimes, only when the NC "feels" like it) to CP for support, it barely covers 1/10 of what it costs to meet the needs (not wants) of a child(ren). Basic math says it's ludicrous to assume, as you have said, "Many of their ex's use it to live better and get better things for their kids then would have been possible while married" Really? It takes 100% of each two full-time incomes to raise a family comfortably nowadays. So how does only ONE full time income, and a mere 20% of another income, provide a single parent with enough to live better than they did before? That's not mathematically feasible. "

jipsi wrote on Mar 27, 2008 12:48 PM:

" (cont.). Mixdown, it's MATH.
You can't take one income PLUS another's percentage, combine them and get a bigger amount than if the two were just flat-out merged!

Your post simply suggests a CP (specifically, mother) would stop using HER income entirely in the support her child(ren) and just use your meager percentage-of-your-whole! You'd have to look far and wide before you found a CP that could do something like that.
If it takes 100% of my current income to raise my children, why would the NCP's paltry portion motivate me to live a "lavish" lifestyle?
It would mean there might be less "disconnect" notices, certainly. It might mean I was able to have a few dollars remaining every month so I could take my kids to a movie.
But I selflessly give up everything in order to provide for my children, and the addition of a few more dollars a month would change that very little.
Our NCP cannot claim THAT, ever.

Remember, a NCP gets to KEEP, for himself, his 72-80%; I'd be lucky to have 5% of MINE leftover. Think about that. "

jipsi wrote on Mar 27, 2008 12:39 PM:

" (cont.)
To claim the CP might "live better" than if married (ie: if you had stayed around to be the Dad AND provider for your family), is outlandish. Most CP's are WOMEN, and earning considerably less than MEN (at the same job!).
So if you figure in your 20-28% being added in to the income the CP is already tapping to the dry bottom every month (attempting to meet the expenses of a two income family wih children, but with their ONE income), things might relax a little bit in some areas, but the struggle would most definitely continue!

EVEN if you were to move in and make 100% of your income available to the raising of said child, coupled with the 100% of CP's income, the CP (or mother, in this case) is STILL living "within" the married financial context.
The ONLY way SHE (CP) would be living "better" is if you financially assumed EVERY household expense AND told her to keep her money for herself.
And, in that case, the child suffers because he/she is, in effect, still being supported by ONE INCOME, albeit a little better than most CP's (mothers) were providing.
(cont.) "

jipsi wrote on Mar 27, 2008 12:32 PM:

" mixdown: "...more money than is DESERVED"??? "Live better... than if they were married"??
First, where did you come up with the notion that CS is MERIT-based??
The courts figure an amount based on the NON CP's income (and quite WRONGLY, as several of us have pointed out!)
I WISH raising my kids only used 20-28% of MY income (which is ONE THIRD of what my ex made)!! But it takes ALL of it, and we still run short at the end of the month. THIS is the "why" of CS, because ONE parent is not supposed to have to shoulder it all alone. It has NOTHING to do with the child OR custodial parent being "deserving"! You might want to go back and READ/reread the discussion here.

What chutzpah... again, this "god complex" some NC's have, bitterly scrutinizing the CS' every expense and communicating their anger/disgust/hatred by withholding what THEY think of as THEIR money.
CS is your OBLIGATORY SHARE of financial responsibility, PERIOD.
A designated portion of your income became the custodial parent's the DAY you child was born. Not because you deem it "deserved" or not.(cont.) "

mixdown wrote on Mar 27, 2008 11:17 AM:

" General statement about child support: I am married and don't have to worry about it, but at the same time I understand whay some men get so upset about the amount of child support they are made to pay. Many of their ex's use it to live better and get better things for their kids then would have been possible while married, and that truly is an injustice. When my kids ask for something new, I tell them, "No, we can't afford it... so deal with it." However, if I were being made to pay child support, I would be paying for a bunch of unneeded things. Here's how it works: Clothing comes from garage sales, food comes from wherever you can find it, and fun is free. Some ex's don't get that. "

mixdown wrote on Mar 27, 2008 11:12 AM:

" "Deadbeat dads" are often (though not always) victims of the system, which often (though not always) asks for more money than is deserved. Some of these hunters often (though not always) do so because they do not have much money to buy food. I'm glad the state thinks they will have more money for child support now that they have to pay much more at a grocery store for their food. Perhaps the state could stay out of it and let these guys send venison steaks instead? "

Bluegrass American wrote on Mar 27, 2008 9:39 AM:

" When a parent does not support their child, they should be charged with neglect. Isn't non-support "neglect?" You give the child a roof over their heads, and then not give them shoes because you can't afford it.................that's neglect. If you don't help in supplying a roof and shoes......................that's not neglect, that's just non support of that child. If the state must support that child, the state will go after their money. If the state is not involved, the parent that is supporting has no laws to recoup the money the non supporting parent has not paid. Something needs to be changed here. They can fight it in court, but there should be a "win hands down" law for the supporting parent. "

jipsi wrote on Mar 27, 2008 9:16 AM:

" HRPuffinstuff: Your comments have all been spot-on! The "good" NC's need to remember that for every ONE of them, there are hundreds of deadbeats "beating the system", out of VINDICTIVENESS to their "ex".
While there are plentiful examples of deadbeat non-custodial, AND money-grubbing custodial, moms, there are several times over as many of the male version.
In my opinion, weighing an old-fashioned "traditional" mindset leftover from the previous century (chiefly, that "men work" and women don't) AND current statistics, too many NC "dads" feel their financial portion must be exchanged for their ideas of visitation (whenever they want to drop by, not when it's convenient for the C parent OR the child) or they fold their arms across their chest and say "won't pay".
This is NOT A TRANSACTION! Regardless of whether they ever get too push Johnny on the swingset again, they're STILL partially responsible for providing their financial share of feeding, clothing and housing that child to the custodial parent!
If they're not getting the time they feel they deserve, they should by all means find a GOOD attorney, but CONTINUE making those timely CS payments! "

HRPuffinstuff wrote on Mar 27, 2008 9:02 AM:

" Jipsi: I also agree with everything you have said. Too often the custodial mother is painted as blowing all child support money on themselves. The concept is laughable! Considering that it really takes two full time incomes anymore to raise a family in a comfortable manner, there simply would be no left over money for a single mother to go live it up at a spa, vacation in Cabo with her landscaper, and buy new sports cars. More than 100% of my income goes to sheltering, feeding, and clothing my children. Before I met "Mr. Right", I have no idea where the extra money was coming from to pay what my full time and part time paychecks couldn't. To all NC's out there that really think the CP's are spending your money to live a lavish lifestyle, think seriously how realistic that would be. The measly 20-30% of YOUR paycheck barely covers the tissue and wet wipes to wipe my kids butts! "

HRPuffinstuff wrote on Mar 27, 2008 8:55 AM:

" (Continued...)I loaned him half a payment once, he felt sick about being late with support. He made payments through the circuit clerk's office. They weren't sharing their records w/ Child Support Enforcement, and they had him $6,000 behind. When his ex found out, she played it like he never made those payments. My friend was smarter, made all payments through money orders, and had record of each payment. In the end, everything worked out, and he was even able to get support adjusted to reflect the lower wage he's making in his new job. I can't help thinking his ex should've been punished somehow, or custody arrangements changed in more favor of my friend, because she made fraudulent, false accusations to result in her financial gain, and consistently uses her kid as punishment. Big Brother, I can't tell you how often I've wished my children's' father was more like you, a part of their lives in all respects. I'm sorry for the harshness of my language , but please know that my resentment is NOT for those of you NC's doing what is honorable. "

HRPuffinstuff wrote on Mar 27, 2008 8:47 AM:

" BigBrother: Considering he was once my husband, yes, I DID expect more. Because he is a father, I would expect nothing less than what you, and other IDEAL NC's do every single day for YOUR children. I'm sorry, my intention was not to beat you up. I guess I kind of responded the same way you are now: with defense because WE are not the ugly people that other NC's AND CP's have turned out to be. Actually, I have a very close male friend of mine who went through a rather nasty situation, with his ex. See, he's like you. HE is a good father, and wishes he could see his child more - but unfortunately she's one of those ugly people, she uses her kid as a way to hurt him. He never not paid child support. There was a time, when he was laid off, that he was late a couple payments - but they were always paid within a week. (continued) "

Annienap wrote on Mar 27, 2008 5:07 AM:

" Perhaps Illinois should do what Nashville, TN was doing and I think are still doing. They had night court-ALL night. Deadbeat moms and dads were brought in. If they didn't pay everything they owed right there on the spot (no matter what the amount was), they went straight to jail. It didn't matter if they were lawyers or mechanics or doctors, they either paid up or went to jail. A lot of people learned how to write a check from their checking accounts really fast and they also learned how to pay their support EVERY time it was due. "

Annienap wrote on Mar 27, 2008 4:59 AM:

" To: jipsi - I'm in total agreement with everything you say. Though I never had the problems that you have had, I know many parents who have. I just happened to have had a really good man (yes, he was a really good man; we just didn't get along) who was an excellent father and provider for his children, too. If there had been a problem getting support from him, taking away hunting and fishing license would have done no good because he did neither one. I would hope that sometime you and your children get some justice somewhere. "

Annienap wrote on Mar 27, 2008 4:52 AM:

" "the way the state works now, they’re in control of way too many things." Is it really too much to ask for someone to support their own children? When I lived in another state, the support was taken out of my husband's check before he ever got it. Worked great for me and he said it worked great for him, too. I got my support on the same day every month and we got along fine with it. My kids were well-adjusted and cared for by both of us. How about taking away their alcohol-more than likeley more is spent on that than on fishing and hunting. "

BigBrother wrote on Mar 27, 2008 2:04 AM:

" To HRPuffinstuff:

Whoa nellie!!!! I am not calling all mommies the evil witch of the west. I am only pointing out that some of us dads are not deadbeats. I paid every child support payment on time for my children. I also took them on vacations, bought them clothes, paid for school activities, went on school trips as a chaperone (a single father with all those soccer moms), and did many other things with my children. My gripe is with the system. Its broke and unfair to all sides. It needs to be fixed. I see many children going without because of the system. I am asking for accountability and feel that many deserving non-custodial parents want the same. Those of us that were not or are not "deadbeats" deserve to be heard and represented as equally as the custodial parents being left out by the system. If the system wasn't broke, there would be no reason for change. The only ones that get screwed are the children. So don't beat on me because your ex is one of the deadbeats. You picked him and made babies with him, did you expect more? "

jipsi wrote on Mar 27, 2008 1:18 AM:

" HRPuffinStuff: You wrote, in part: "And, if one were to consider your argument seriously, does that mean that the custodial parent would no longer have to contribute 100% of their paycheck to the well-being of their child(ren) and only 20-30% like the non-custodial parent? ""
Exactly!
If I had put aside even/only 50% of my income to address costs of being a parent/raising children. we would have been living on the streets.
The house we have is for the kids (as a single, I could do nicely in a cheap studio apt.).
The car we have is for the kids, because, as a single, I was always fine with walking, riding my bike (before parenthood).
And so on. The money that pays for those things (the higher utility bills, the YMCA family fees, etc.) cannot be segregated into an account because our entire income is ENMESHED in the lifestyle of "parenthood".
Nothing short of 70-80% of BOTH parents' incomes combined comes close to covering the expense of being a family...
The deadbeat NC's don't realize how easy they're getting off the hook (for the intricate bulk of what it costs to be a FULL TIME, IN-HOUSE PARENT.... "

jipsi wrote on Mar 27, 2008 12:58 AM:

" (cont.)
The custodial parent that does not receive the OTHER parent's financial share of support cannot raise the child(ren) on their own portion alone; they must somehow fund it ALL, the deadbeat's share included. HERE is where the children get shortchanged...

See, in short, you are REIMBURSING the custodial parent for THEIR HUGE EXPENSE in covering not only THEIR portion, but YOURS, "for you", too, all those years.
What is done with THAT "repayment" is none of your business, as long as the children are clean, healthy, happy and provided for by both parents!
The custodial parent is NOT the one who owes YOU anything, least of all an "accounting for" every penny of the SMALLER portion you grudgingly supply. (Want to see the "accounting for" of every penny of MY entire income over the past 16+ years in raising these kids on my income alone? You would have to deduce your child support obligation SHOULD increase up to three times the measly amount a court ordered you to give over.

My piece, not so humble, but straight from the head and the hip... "

jipsi wrote on Mar 27, 2008 12:55 AM:

" I really wonder if it's possible to get this THROUGH to some of the thick-skulled deadbeats, but the money they provide as child support is NOT an "allowance" FOR the kids; it's reimbursement, in most cases, to the custodial parent, because THEY have been supporting the child(ren) by paying out not only THEIR obligation but YOURS, for you, too. And even putting those "two figures" together is usually NOT ENOUGH to address the monthly, ever-changing, expenses neccessary to raise a child.

A custodial parent not receiving CS doesn't stop and say, "Oh, no more food this month; I've already met MY portion!" No... in fact, we have to cover YOURS, as well, and we STILL don't stop and say, "Enough! The rest is MINE!".
We beg, borrow, scrimp and scratch, being forced do without all of the things a "normal" two-income family might enjoy (like real "new" school clothes, a simple family vacation once in a blue moon, a newer-than-ten-year-old car, a fishing trip for Dad or weekend spa retreat for Mom.)
(cont.) "

jipsi wrote on Mar 26, 2008 11:41 PM:

" editorgirl62: Too bad we couldn't get an attorney to do 'multiple' cases (one fee that the cash-poor single moms could pool together on), especially large, incredibly FLAGRANT cases like yours and mine. A GOOD lawyer would go after the both and get a court order to force the deadbeats to work or go to jail (we have nothing to lose, as we've already not seen a dime of support. At least there would be some PUNISHMENT for the scofflaws!). If the deadbeats went to jail rather than "pay up", confiscate their vehicles, wide-screen TV's, laptops, etc. to cover the legal fees.
For the"roobyroofan" who remarks the hunting license method is "unfair" just because the guy gets "behind" on child support: tell me, in YOUR estimation, WHEN "behind" becomes "refusing to pay"?? $14,000? $50,000? $65,000?
When a child has to eat everyday, when bills have to be paid every month, even being "behind" one month, or as low as $200, iis TOO MUCH.
You either don't have children at all, or you do but you're not the custodial parent... "

jipsi wrote on Mar 26, 2008 11:28 PM:

" And this is for anyone wanting to respond to my dry wit with an accusation of "bitterness":
OF COURSE there's some 'major dislike' happening now.
Try raising kids as a single parent. Thrift store clothes. Reduced-price lunches they were too embarassed to eat. Never having a real vacation OUR WHOLE LIVES together. Driving, and then handing down to the oldest on his 16th birthday, a nearly twenty year old car (not a babe magnet, he assures me) to "borrow" because I can't afford to license and insure a second. Selling the Christmas present Playstation to cover the increase winter heating bills. (I won't continue because I'm actually in a good mood today!).
I've made it on my own, this far, only a couple years until mine are out of the house.
Right about now, however, it'd be NICE if my sacrifices weren't the only ones in the college kitty.
"He's" running out of the last few things he could take any credit for... "

jipsi wrote on Mar 26, 2008 11:18 PM:

" Hoiw's about THIS, instead:
Restrict the deadbeats from, as in have them arrested if they even ENTER, any bar or tavern.
Period.
Our 'deadbeat dad' just MIGHT be inspired to start paying on the $65,000+ he now owes in child support!
(16 years

Ads by Yahoo!

Illinois Board Up Service

Relocating to Bloomington IL?

Workforce Development: South Central IL