Child Custody - parent's name not on birth certificate.

Gini wrote:
==
Umm...The poster states the father *wishes* to be involved in the child's
life.
The poster asks how to interfere with that.
==
==

Let us re-read exactly what the poster wrote.

"The biological father decided for over a year that he didn't want to
take any part in the
child's life"

And then when served with a paper to relenquish his rights, he
refuses to sign because he wants to be in the childs life. Well then
by all means I fully encouarge that. If he wants to be dad to his
child, then who are we to say other wise..

All I have stated if he is going to do it.. then get on with it.. and
be a dad... I don't know if the guy is trying to interfere or not.. he
is simply asking what he should do. So I suggested to him... put the
ball in the Bio-dad's court.

By simply informing him of his responsibility in being a father, and
tell him they will be enforced. Ther Bio-Dad may blink and sign the
paper after seeing the mounting responsibility, or simply pick up the
ball and run with it. Which again by all means I support.

SpiderHam77

wrote in message
oups.com...
Hello:

In regard to custody of a child. My wife's child is no one years old,
but I'm not the legal father of the child. The biological father
decided for over a year that he didn't want to take any part in the
child's life and avoided paying any child support. My wife decided not
to pursue him paying child support and let issue be.

He declined to sign any papers for child support and verbally told my
wife that he doesn't care to give up his parental rights, so now the
biological father wants to be in my wife's child's life? If he
declined to sign the papers for child support and never proved himself
as the biological father, what rights does he have now?

Currently, the biological father's name isn't on the birth certificate.

It is the mother's responsibility to declare her marital status for birth
certificate information. State laws allow married mothers to name the
father on the birth certificate using the legal concept of paternity
presumption her husband is the bio-father. Unmarried mothers cannot name
the father on the original birth certificate. Birth certificates can be
modified at a later date.

Unmarried parents have two other options - voluntarily sign a Joint
Declaration of Paternity or have a court sign a judicial filiation judgment.
There cannot be any CS order until one of the above three methods of
establishing paternity are completed. The father did the right legal
things - He refused to sign a CS agreement without first being proven to be
the biological father, and he has the right to not declare (prove as you
called it) his paternity without DNA testing.

Parental rights are tied to establishing paternity. Most states have no
statute of limitations on the establishment of paternity and federal law
prevents any state from setting a paternity establishment deadline of under
18 years. That means the bio-father has an unlimited amount of time to
assert his parental rights as the child's father. But it also means he
cannot get legal visitations with the child without first being recognized
as the bio-father.

My recommendation would be for "Concerned" to get out of the middle of this
mess and let the biological parents decide the right course of action. If
the mother has no interest in having the bio-father involved in the child's
life that should be the end of it. As the new husband "Concerned" has no
parental rights and cannot act to limit the bio-father's parental rights.

Who said anything about trying to drive a father from his childs
life. All I was talking about is if this guy doesn't give lots of
money to his ex then he is not acting like
a father... and someone is willing to help the ex to spent this
money then why not.

First of all... don't quote somone, and missquote them.

I was just removing the doublespeak. You can think of it as
a free public service!

abdd wrote:

I was just removing the doublespeak. You can think of it as
a free public service!

Doublespeak... Oh I forgot you got your mind reading cert out of the
Cracker Jack Box... You must be qualifed to be able to read what was I
was thinking by changing the TXT written. When if you look close at
what was written, you'll notice your way off the mark.

Like I said I don't mind people disagreeing with me.. Feel free to...
But make sure they are your opinions... Not being played off as mine.
You have no idea what I am thinking. And I still have no idea how you
got what you wrote, out of what was written. Because like I said.. you
were way off the mark.

Feel free to discuss how you feel on any of this.. It's your right as
a member of the group. But please make them your comments...

"SpiderHam77" wrote in message
oups.com...

Dusty wrote:

And just what do you propose to do when the state steps in and makes it
impossible for a parent to exercise their rights?

First of all... I have no idea how the state would make it
impossible for this guy to be a father.. The Poster is saying the guy
has never taken an interest. Nothing to do with the state forcing him
one way or the other.

SpiderHam77

It was a general question.

Dusty wrote:
"SpiderHam77" wrote in message
oups.com...

Dusty wrote:

And just what do you propose to do when the state steps in and makes it
impossible for a parent to exercise their rights?

First of all... I have no idea how the state would make it
impossible for this guy to be a father.. The Poster is saying the guy
has never taken an interest. Nothing to do with the state forcing him
one way or the other.

SpiderHam77

It was a general question.

May be a genral question.. but you still make the assumption it's
going to happen. I'm sure if you check the stats the State really only
steps in a small fraction of all the Child Custody arrangments, as most
parents are able to come to some sort of term between themselves.

SpiderHam77

"SpiderHam77" wrote in message
ups.com...

Dusty wrote:
"SpiderHam77" wrote in message
oups.com...

Dusty wrote:

And just what do you propose to do when the state steps in and makes
it
impossible for a parent to exercise their rights?

First of all... I have no idea how the state would make it
impossible for this guy to be a father.. The Poster is saying the guy
has never taken an interest. Nothing to do with the state forcing him
one way or the other.

SpiderHam77

It was a general question.

May be a genral question.. but you still make the assumption it's
going to happen. I'm sure if you check the stats the State really only
steps in a small fraction of all the Child Custody arrangments, as most
parents are able to come to some sort of term between themselves.

SpiderHam77

Bullocks. I suggest that you take a look at both STATE and FEDERAL C$ laws.
They clearly state that a parent that is behind in their C$, for whatever
reason, opens themselves up to loss of their drivers and professional
licenses; revocation of their passport; massive IRS interventions; intrusive
wage garnishment programs and a whole host of other draconian measures that
are all in place thanks to our buddies, the rad-fems.

And these measures have a fairly low threshold, they kick in when an NCP
hits $5k in arrears. Something that, when coupled with imputed income
(something commonly applied by "Family Courts" all across the globe), this
amount becomes extremely easily achieved in very short order.

But of course, these laws only apply to NCPs, not any other type of parent
(least of all married or cohabitating parents). I'd love to see these same
laws applied to married parents, too. Then we'd see some real fast changes
to the C$ laws...

If you doubt me, just run a search on USC Title 42, section 666. You'll
find it all right there in black and white.

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 10:50:15 -0500, "Dusty" wrote:

Bullocks. I suggest that you take a look at both STATE and FEDERAL C$ laws.
They clearly state that a parent that is behind in their C$, for whatever
reason, opens themselves up to loss of their drivers and professional
licenses; revocation of their passport; massive IRS interventions; intrusive
wage garnishment programs and a whole host of other draconian measures that
are all in place thanks to our buddies, the rad-fems.

And these measures have a fairly low threshold, they kick in when an NCP
hits $5k in arrears. Something that, when coupled with imputed income
(something commonly applied by "Family Courts" all across the globe), this
amount becomes extremely easily achieved in very short order.

But of course, these laws only apply to NCPs, not any other type of parent
(least of all married or cohabitating parents). I'd love to see these same
laws applied to married parents, too. Then we'd see some real fast changes
to the C$ laws...

If you doubt me, just run a search on USC Title 42, section 666. You'll
find it all right there in black and white.

I feel the need to clarify something so both you and others know that,
while it is true that all NCPs can be subject to all the collection
methods you describe, most are only applicable if state aid (either
financial or collection) is sought. A child support order, in and of
itself, does not default to such collection measures at ANY threshold
of arrearages.

My experience, both as a CP and as an employer required to withhold
child support from an employee's wages, tells me that using state
services is, perhaps, the best way for a CP to ensure that child
support dollars are never seen by the child(ren) NOR by the CP in many
cases. I can't imagine any intelligent CP using such services unless
there is nothing less to lose.

Let me explain.

As a CP who explored using state services for collection once my ex
ceased paying child support at all (yet still had an order in place to
claim the children as tax deductions), I found that the state would
not help me collect unless I signed a form with a clause that,
basically, said the state would collect it, but not guarantee they
would distribute it to me for care of my children. I'm certain that
was a clause intended for the sole purpose of holding funds that were
distributed as welfare benefits, but it was generic enough to allow
the state too much discretion in whether money collected would
actually benefit my children. As an intelligent person, I was not
about to sign this as is and, as a result, the state closed my case
instead of modifying the contract to fit. No surprise there.
However, without "state interference," the methods of collection
available to me did not include even an IRS intervention despite that
his entire refund may be a result of claiming two dependents for which
he provided no support (and IRS rules prohibit tying rights to
dependency to actual payment of child support).

Friends that I have whom are CPs and have decided to sign the
paperwork I could not see signing (and it is mandatory if you ever
need state financial assistance) have found that they are in a
position of having to beg child support enforcement to do ANYTHING in
relation to getting child support. Yes, the law says that states must
have a plan in place to enforce child support obligations using the
methods you described, but it does not say they MUST be used. I
suspect that the state looks out for the state's interests first
(collecting from those whose payments repay the state for benefits
dispersed) and never seem to have time for all-out collection efforts
for those who are NOT receiving benefits. Not ONE of my friends, all
of whom do not receive state financial aid, has had much luck in
actually receiving child support and NONE of their children's fathers
have ever been subject to the extreme collection methods.

But, then, I also look at a situation which came up at work. Although
child support was withheld from an employee's wages as ordered, the CP
of those children was still not receiving support. It took quite a
lot of effort and time, on my part, to determine what happened to the
money. In the long run, I determined that these funds were being
funneled to a "I don't know what to do with it" state account. My
employee was being credited with child support payments since they
reached the court-appointed payment center, but his children were not
receiving the benefits of his payments. The STATE simply put it in an
interest bearing account. The reason behind it all? Having to funnel
money through child support enforcement! Wage withholdings are paid
to the same agency whether child support enforcement is involved or
not. From there, non-child support enforcement payments are sent
directly to the CP within 24 hours. If child support enforcement is
involved, there are several more steps the payment goes through before
being distributed. As a result, there are more steps for error to
occur. As I was investigating this problem, I found that once payment
reaches the processes involved with child support enforcement, getting
the payments to the CPs for the sake of the children was not as
important as simply finding a "place" for the money to go. What I
couldn't understand is why the CP chose to have the state do what was
required by law since 1994 anyway (wage withholding) when a simple
trip to the courthouse to fill out a few forms would have sufficed.

At any rate, I know that many NCPs have suffered through these
collection methods, but I am certain that they are not applied as a
matter of course. It is only when the state gets involved (versus the
judicial system) when the majority of them CAN be applied and, even
then, only when the state decides to... whether that be because they
are attempting to recoup benefits or the CP pushes the issue and I'll
admit that some CPs want revenge more than the well-being of their
child.

But I can also assure you that using child support enforcement is not
always the best route to take for a CP trying to collect child
support. Just heading down that road can ensure a CP never sees a
penny. As much as it angered me that my ex was subsidizing his
existence for having sired children (taking tax benefits while paying
nothing), the best interests of my children were never going to be
served by child support enforcement and its collection methods.
Hence, my ex husband will never be in danger of having to experience
such tactics DESPITE the fact that he is well over the "threshold" in
arrears.
Beverly

"Beverly" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 10:50:15 -0500, "Dusty" wrote:

Bullocks. I suggest that you take a look at both STATE and FEDERAL C$
laws.
They clearly state that a parent that is behind in their C$, for whatever
reason, opens themselves up to loss of their drivers and professional
licenses; revocation of their passport; massive IRS interventions;
intrusive
wage garnishment programs and a whole host of other draconian measures
that
are all in place thanks to our buddies, the rad-fems.

And these measures have a fairly low threshold, they kick in when an NCP
hits $5k in arrears. Something that, when coupled with imputed income
(something commonly applied by "Family Courts" all across the globe),
this
amount becomes extremely easily achieved in very short order.

But of course, these laws only apply to NCPs, not any other type of
parent
(least of all married or cohabitating parents). I'd love to see these
same
laws applied to married parents, too. Then we'd see some real fast
changes
to the C$ laws...

If you doubt me, just run a search on USC Title 42, section 666. You'll
find it all right there in black and white.

I feel the need to clarify something so both you and others know that,
while it is true that all NCPs can be subject to all the collection
methods you describe, most are only applicable if state aid (either
financial or collection) is sought. A child support order, in and of
itself, does not default to such collection measures at ANY threshold
of arrearages.

Beverly, you couldn't be more wrong. C$E agencies use FEDERALLY MANDATED
license revocation (drivers and professional) as a main method in attempting
to collect C$ arrears. Neither the states, the courts, or even the CP need
do anything at all to set the majority of these collection methods in
place - they are done AUTOMATICALLY when an arrears reaches $5000. USC
Title 42, section 666 states this in no uncertain terms. So, you are
patently wrong in your assumption that an application for state aid is
necessary to start the process.

If an application for state aid is made prior to the arrears reaching $5k,
then things like NCP wage garnishment (unless it's already been ordered by a
court) kicks in - to pay back the money that the state is (or has) paying
out to the CP. Besides wage garnishment, there is also state and federal
income tax seizure.

The vast majority of nastiness (on top of, and including, the bull sh*t a
court can order) that can happen to NCP's comes directly from USC 42, 666.
Go read it and learn the truth.

My experience, both as a CP and as an employer required to withhold
child support from an employee's wages, tells me that using state
services is, perhaps, the best way for a CP to ensure that child
support dollars are never seen by the child(ren) NOR by the CP in many
cases. I can't imagine any intelligent CP using such services unless
there is nothing less to lose.

Your experience is, obviously, not the norm.

[snip]

Dusty wrote:

Bullocks. I suggest that you take a look at both STATE and FEDERAL C$ laws.
They clearly state that a parent that is behind in their C$, for whatever
reason, opens themselves up to loss of their drivers and professional
licenses; revocation of their passport; massive IRS interventions; intrusive
wage garnishment programs and a whole host of other draconian measures that
are all in place thanks to our buddies, the rad-fems.

And these measures have a fairly low threshold, they kick in when an NCP
hits $5k in arrears. Something that, when coupled with imputed income
(something commonly applied by "Family Courts" all across the globe), this
amount becomes extremely easily achieved in very short order.

But of course, these laws only apply to NCPs, not any other type of parent
(least of all married or cohabitating parents). I'd love to see these same
laws applied to married parents, too. Then we'd see some real fast changes
to the C$ laws...

If you doubt me, just run a search on USC Title 42, section 666. You'll
find it all right there in black and white.

I don't doubt you... Nor did I say I do... but what does CS have to
do with Parental rights.. they are 2 exclusive issues, and never should
the 2 be mixed. As a parent you have a right to have access to your
child, regardless of what the other one thinks, or if you've paid your
support or not.

But at the same time, if you are going to be a parent, then you need
to hold up your end of bargin and support your child. You can't just
be a parent when it's convient for you. If your going to be a parent..
guess what there is alot of responsibility that goes along with it.

And I don't really see how CS enforcement rules come into play with
this thread.. I mentioned maybe telling the father he will have CS
enforced through the courts.. but that was in an effort to let the guy
know if he wants to be a dad, and be in his childrens life, then this
is what is going to happen... your going to be asked help raise the
child.

If there is a mystery in what I'm talking about.. please ask and I
will try and clarify.

SpiderHam77