Not paying child support is "child abuse", says Texas Attorney General

"DB" wrote
.................................................. ...

Nobody is going to threaten the Mother with jail time of she doesn't have
the money to feed her kids.
She at least has plenty of options in terms of finding free food for the
kids, nobody starves to death in America.
===
Well, it could happen--to the "forgotten" subsequent children. Say dad is
required to pay lifestyle child support
to the ex and has a couple young ones living with him. The state doesn't
consider subsequent children in the CS tables. Then say his current wife
becomes disabled due to an accident. Here's the breakdown: Ex (mom) has
gross income
of 36k / and lives in a state with no income tax and nets 2800. +/- per
month.
Say dad has gross income of 50k., and pays high state income tax to another
state and nets 3200 a month.
Say he must pay 1200. CS to the ex giving her a net of 4k a month and
reducing his net
to 2k per month. Now, the children of the order qualify for several income
based programs
(reduced lunch, daycare, etc) because those qualifications are based on
mom's gross income
of 36k. OTOH, dad's subsequent children qualify for no similar programs
because they
are based his gross income of 50k. There is no safety net for those
subsequent children even
though children of other families with net income of 2k per month qualify
for many
income based programs because the programs are based on gross income and
the other
kids with 2k net have family gross of much less than dad. It doesn't take a
whole lot
of number juggling to see that these subsequent children could be in serious
financial
peril with no government safety programs to fall back on while their older
half-siblings are living
relatively large (well, at least their mom is) with all kinds of "handouts."
Now, when we hear that
"it's in the best interest of the children," we must ask, "which children?"
Are some children's
best interests inherently more important than other children's best
interest? They are when it comes
to family court. Why? Because the state can only profit from the money
extracted from dad, under the
guise of child support. If the state were to equalize all dad's children, it
would lose a significant portion
of the federal dollars it reaps from child support collections.
===

"Gini" wrote in message
news:7E5of.3411$Bj4.2552@trndny01...

"DB" wrote
.................................................. ..

Nobody is going to threaten the Mother with jail time of she doesn't
have
the money to feed her kids.
She at least has plenty of options in terms of finding free food for the
kids, nobody starves to death in America.
===
Well, it could happen--to the "forgotten" subsequent children. Say dad is
required to pay lifestyle child support
to the ex and has a couple young ones living with him. The state doesn't
consider subsequent children in the CS tables. Then say his current wife
becomes disabled due to an accident. Here's the breakdown: Ex (mom) has
gross income
of 36k / and lives in a state with no income tax and nets 2800. +/- per
month.
Say dad has gross income of 50k., and pays high state income tax to
another
state and nets 3200 a month.
Say he must pay 1200. CS to the ex giving her a net of 4k a month and
reducing his net
to 2k per month. Now, the children of the order qualify for several income
based programs
(reduced lunch, daycare, etc) because those qualifications are based on
mom's gross income
of 36k. OTOH, dad's subsequent children qualify for no similar programs
because they
are based his gross income of 50k. There is no safety net for those
subsequent children even
though children of other families with net income of 2k per month qualify
for many
income based programs because the programs are based on gross income and
the other
kids with 2k net have family gross of much less than dad. It doesn't take
a
whole lot
of number juggling to see that these subsequent children could be in
serious
financial
peril with no government safety programs to fall back on while their older
half-siblings are living
relatively large (well, at least their mom is) with all kinds of
"handouts."
Now, when we hear that
"it's in the best interest of the children," we must ask, "which
children?"
Are some children's
best interests inherently more important than other children's best
interest? They are when it comes
to family court. Why? Because the state can only profit from the money
extracted from dad, under the
guise of child support. If the state were to equalize all dad's children,
it
would lose a significant portion
of the federal dollars it reaps from child support collections.
===

Good post Gini - The issue you have pointed out is the CP mothers have the
option to declare or ignore the CS and SS income they receive to establish
eligibility for public benefits. I was always appalled that I was paying
huge amounts of CS and SS to my ex yet my children were eligible for school
lunch program subsidies. Their mother chose not to declare the actual
household money she was getting to support the children and take the public
money benefits on top of what she got already.

The problem I experienced is worse with subsequent families because, as you
point out, subsequent children are not factored into any of the "government"
thinking about who qualifies for benefits. There is a serious disconnect
between state CS benefits and federal child-related benefits when they favor
non-needy children over more needy children.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
k.net...

"Gini" wrote in message
news:7E5of.3411$Bj4.2552@trndny01...

"DB" wrote
.................................................. ..

Nobody is going to threaten the Mother with jail time of she doesn't
have
the money to feed her kids.
She at least has plenty of options in terms of finding free food for
the
kids, nobody starves to death in America.
===
Well, it could happen--to the "forgotten" subsequent children. Say dad is
required to pay lifestyle child support
to the ex and has a couple young ones living with him. The state doesn't
consider subsequent children in the CS tables. Then say his current wife
becomes disabled due to an accident. Here's the breakdown: Ex (mom) has
gross income
of 36k / and lives in a state with no income tax and nets 2800. +/- per
month.
Say dad has gross income of 50k., and pays high state income tax to
another
state and nets 3200 a month.
Say he must pay 1200. CS to the ex giving her a net of 4k a month and
reducing his net
to 2k per month. Now, the children of the order qualify for several
income
based programs
(reduced lunch, daycare, etc) because those qualifications are based on
mom's gross income
of 36k. OTOH, dad's subsequent children qualify for no similar programs
because they
are based his gross income of 50k. There is no safety net for those
subsequent children even
though children of other families with net income of 2k per month qualify
for many
income based programs because the programs are based on gross income and
the other
kids with 2k net have family gross of much less than dad. It doesn't take
a
whole lot
of number juggling to see that these subsequent children could be in
serious
financial
peril with no government safety programs to fall back on while their
older
half-siblings are living
relatively large (well, at least their mom is) with all kinds of
"handouts."
Now, when we hear that
"it's in the best interest of the children," we must ask, "which
children?"
Are some children's
best interests inherently more important than other children's best
interest? They are when it comes
to family court. Why? Because the state can only profit from the money
extracted from dad, under the
guise of child support. If the state were to equalize all dad's children,
it
would lose a significant portion
of the federal dollars it reaps from child support collections.
===

Good post Gini - The issue you have pointed out is the CP mothers have the
option to declare or ignore the CS and SS income they receive to establish
eligibility for public benefits. I was always appalled that I was paying
huge amounts of CS and SS to my ex yet my children were eligible for
school
lunch program subsidies. Their mother chose not to declare the actual
household money she was getting to support the children and take the
public
money benefits on top of what she got already.

The problem I experienced is worse with subsequent families because, as
you
point out, subsequent children are not factored into any of the
"government"
thinking about who qualifies for benefits. There is a serious disconnect
between state CS benefits and federal child-related benefits when they
favor
non-needy children over more needy children.
====
It is a tragedy--A very real tragedy. As most of the regulars here know, the
above situation
I wrote about was ours, and we were more fortunate than most NCP dads in
that
we had/have excellent health benefits (and I am, for the
most part, back on my feet again).
But, the problem of discarded subsequent
children is very real and they are a class of children at significant risk.
How the state can treat them so
neglectfully while at the same time, pretend it gives a damn about kids is
unfathomable to me.
====
====