A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Police: Man faked death to avoid child support



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #421  
Old January 30th 06, 08:20 AM posted to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.child-support
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Don't Spawn 'Em If You're Gonna Pawn 'Em


* US * wrote in message ...
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 10:18:19 -0800, "garbageteachr"
wrote:

Good--now let's go one step further. Do you believe that both men and
women
are responsible to provide for their children FINANCIALLY?


There's a concept called opportunity cost.
Of course you're too stupid to know what
it means, but it entails the fact that the
person providing caregiving is providing
for the child financially.


Where does the mother who is doing the caretaking get the money to provide
financially? Does the mother earn money at a job? Or do you believe that
the mother should be paid by the father for handling the responsibilities
she took on when she chose to create a child?



  #422  
Old January 30th 06, 08:22 AM posted to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.child-support
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Don't Spawn 'Em If You're Gonna Pawn 'Em


* US * wrote in message ...
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 10:31:42 -0800, "garbageteachr"
wrote:

...believe that all women who go out to work abandon their babies alone
...


You must be really stupid to believe that, too.


Actually, I don't believe that. YOU are the one that mentioned that a
mother going out to work was abandoning her baby alone.


  #423  
Old January 30th 06, 08:24 AM posted to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.child-support
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Don't Spawn 'Em If You're Gonna Pawn 'Em


* US * wrote in message ...
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 10:33:34 -0800, "garbageteachr"
wrote:

... a part of child rearing ...


Somebody has to take care of the kid.

Your temporary lay doesn't want to do it. He doesn't
want to pay enough for daycare, either.


The "child" is coming up on 17 years old. She was almost 13 when we found
out about her. I'm pretty sure child care is not an issue. Any other
readons her mother shouldn't earn money to provide for the children she
produced?


  #424  
Old January 30th 06, 08:30 AM posted to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.child-support
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Don't Spawn 'Em If You're Gonna Pawn 'Em


* US * wrote in message ...
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 10:36:20 -0800, "garbageteachr"
wrote:


TM said: ...Are healthy adult women responsible to earn money to
support the children that they bring into the world?



US replied: Why do you believe that rearing the children isn't support?


TM said: Do you believe that you can rear children without any money? Do
you believe that financial responsibilty isn't a part of child rearing?

US replied: ....believe that you can rear children without any money ...

You must be really stupid to believe that, too.


Once again, US seems incapable of answering a question, but cuts words out
of context and sneers at them.


It also can't be done without someone willing
to spend the time and effort on the child.


True, US. BOTH are needed. And the parents share the responsibility for
both equally. Not one parent pays for being a parent and the other gets paid
to be a parent.


  #425  
Old January 30th 06, 08:38 AM posted to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.child-support
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Don't Spawn 'Em If You're Gonna Pawn 'Em


* US * wrote in message ...
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 10:28:44 -0800, "garbageteachr"
wrote:

So you are saying that alcoholic women do not need to be held responsible
for their choices


If your temporary lay ****ed a drunk woman who
was passed out, what choice did she make?


Since that is not what happened, your question is just another avoidance of
the questions being asked. As for the choices women have, they can
practice abstinence
have their tubes tied
take birth control pills or use another method of birth control
have an abortion
leave the child at a drop-off center
give the child up for adoption
let the father raise the child
share custody 50/50 with dad

Lots of choices.





  #426  
Old January 30th 06, 08:40 AM posted to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.child-support
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Police: Man faked death to avoid child support

test
"Beverly" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 04:44:30 GMT, WhyNotMe
wrote:

teachrmama wrote:

"WhyNotMe" wrote in message
news:FGWAf.718595$x96.379007@attbi_s72...

teachrmama wrote:


"WhyNotMe" wrote in message
news:6qSAf.508245$084.209812@attbi_s22...


DB wrote:


"WhyNotMe" wrote in




A decent man wants his child's life to improve as his own situation
improves. Please note, I said a decent man. There are plenty that
prefer to spend that raise on a new car, new honey, new boat,

etc...


Yes, and a decent society would allow him to show this on his own
instead of being strong armed by the state.

Seems the American way is to mandate the State's will by force!



There are hundreds and thousands of child support cases that are

handled
without any state involvement. It is a fact, however, that the vast,
vast majority of non-custodial parents do not pay on time and in full

&
the assistance of the government is needed in collecting even the
generally modest amounts that are ordered by courts. The federal CSE
program essntially started in 1975 & was in response to a glaring

need
that was not being met by the courts and private attorneys. Prior to

that
there was a long, long, long period of time in which the willingness

of
(mainly) male non-custodial parents to do the decent thing was
demonstrated pretty conclusively. The taxpayers, by the way, were

left
to foot the bill in most instances.


Can you please post a cite for your statements above? Where we live,

ALL
court ordered child support is done by wage garnishment. ALL! In my
husband's case (he did not even know about the child until she was

almost
13, btw) his wages are garnished on the 1st of each month, as ordered

by
the court. However, CSE counts him as delinquent each and every

month,
even though the money is paid exactly according to court order. He

has
NEVER missed a payment--but statistics count him among the deadbeats.
You know what they say: There are lies, d*mn lies, and statistics.
There are not nearly as many deadbeats out there as you have been led

to
believe.

You are wrong. Virtually every really high dollar divorce case

involving
significant dollar amounts are handled by private attorneys and the

state
CSE apparatus has nothing to do with any of the intrusiveness

complained
about in the prior posts.

I sincerely doubt that in your husband's case, if the facts are as you
stated, that he is "counted as delinquent" (whatever that means - how
would you know how they count him?)


On the contrary, I know exactly how he is counted. He was assigned 2

years
of arrearages from the moment paternity was proved--even though he did

not
know the child existed. Every monthly payment is counted as late

because it
is garnished on the 1st AND due on the first. Our house has a lien on

it,
even though he has not missed a single payment in over 4 years, and the
arrearage is almost paid off. Our income tax refund this year will

nearly
wipe it out. The CS arreearage is on his credit report--even though he

has
never missed a payment. And guess what else. Although our income tax
refund was grabbed every year for last 4 years, they never counted it.
Never took it off the arrearage. We had to file several demands before

they
even looked into it. They were fixing on assigning an additional

amount of
money garnished from his wages to GET THE MONEY THEY HAD ALREADY

TAKEN!!
Such a kind, sweet agency you are defending!


As for lies, damned lies and statistics, you left out one category -
facts.


Ah, yes. Facts. Like the ones I stated above. Like the fact that we

were
told by the court that our 2 daughters are irrelevant. That's
right--irrelevant. This agency that supposedly looks out for the best
interests of the children really only looks out for certain children

and
does not give a rat's tookus if other children are forced into poverty

by
their methods. Facts, yes.

There are, in fact, many more deadbeats than most people know.

Nationwide, on average, only 59% of the currently monthly child support
ordered by the courts is paid.


Really? And the payments garnished from my husband's wages are NOT

COUNTED
as paid on time. It's just a matter of how the payments are recorded.

Last
spring, the social worked who deals with the mother of his child called

and
asked when the current month's child support would be paid. He told

her it
has been garnished from his wages as always. But it hadn't arrived.

It got
there 2 months late! AND it is recorded as 2 months late on his CSE
account. Even though it was garnished and sent in the same as every

other
month!


In addition, only 60% of the cases that

had developed an arrearage receive any sort of payment in any given

year.
Check out the following link:


http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/...minary_report/

#box_scores

These numbers, while shocking, have been improving steadily over the

last
ten to 15 years. Bush and the Repugs, however, just slashed federal
funding of the CSE programs to the States as apart of their "budget
discipline" exercise just before Christmas (I mean the Holidays.) So,
these facts will only worsen. Although I suppose that all depends on

your
point of view.


Why don't you explain what you think this link is saying. I'd be very
curious to hear your interpretation.


Well, that's a lot to respond to & I'll probably anger you with my
views, but here goes:

If the Court or whoever entered an order that said your husband was
responsible for payment of two years of past due support, then, yes,
that amount is overdue and payment toward the amount is delinquent even
if every payment since the order was entered has been made on time.
There was a prior period of time that the child was in need of support
and did not have it from him & now he is repaying. What you are saying
is like if I said I am making the required minimum payments to VISA on a
$5,000.00 balance each month. Yes, I am doing what I am required to do,
and I can be considered to be making timely payments but I am still
behind and delinquent to the tune of $5,000.00


In the financial world, the terms "delinquency" and "debt" are not
equivalent. While every delinquency is a debt by its very nature
(there must be a debt before a delinquency can occur), not every debt
is a delinquency. Your credit card scenario leaves you with a debt
with no delinquency. BOTH can have negative impacts on your credit
score; however, a delinquency is always viewed negatively. For your
information, not all debt is bad.

In the particular case being discussed, it is more akin to opening a
credit card while in college, closing the card a year after your last
known transaction, and finding a collections agency on your credit
report 10 years later because a merchant had neglected to submit the
charges in a timely fashion. Yes, there was irresponsibility on the
part of the card holder, but the merchant ALSO had a responsibility it
neglected. The main difference between a credit card charge and child
support is that it is more likely the merchant would be held
accountable for its own neglect than a single mother would be. I
support mandatory notification of potential paternity for cases just
like the one being discussed.


Further, since the past due amount has been ordered due why shouldn't
every effort be made to pay it off as quickly as possible via tax refund
intercepts and other means. After all, you are repaying money that
should have been paid in support of the child during a previous time.
And why shouldn't the child support debt information be available to
creditors? It is a bill that he owes like any other and if he is paying
on it then those payments will be reflected to his credit as a bill
being paid on time. A lien on a house only affects you if you are
selling the house. If you are selling, why shouldn't the custodial
parent have that tool to be sure that she gets her past due payment? It
all makes a great deal of sense to me.


But what DOESN'Tmake sense is having a court order to pay $X toward
current child support and $Y toward a debt established on the day of
the order, paying $X and $Y religiously in the ordered amounts, and
having all payments applied only to Y. "Paying as agreed" is
applicable, not "delinquent." Furthermore, how does harming a man's
credit thereby decreasing his cash flow improve his ability to pay off
his debt? Fact of the matter is... child support enforcement tactics
do more to inhibit the ability to pay than they do to encourage
payment when the ability to pay is borderline... and inability to pay
is a major cause of delinquencies. Yes, there are real deadbeats out
there; however, "deadbeat" and "delinquent" are similarly unequal to
"debt" and "delinquent." One must be delinquent to be a deadbeat by
its very nature, but certainly does not need to be a deadbeat to be
delinquent.

I need to ask you a question concerning X and Y to see what your
response is. Let's say you live in a very rural area where all
utilities are collected by the same company. If you are have two
utility bills due, say telephone and water, and do not have enough to
cover your utility bills in their entirety and make payment
arrangements for the telephone bill; would it be proper for the
company to apply all payments first to telephone (since T comes before
W) and the remainder toward water causing your water to be shut off
for non-payment?


If there are payments that you say have not been properly credited, why
not supply the agency with proof and clear the matter up. How did four
years of supposed tax payments not get credited? I certainly would know
whether money taken from me was properly accounted for & would never
let four years go by without some answers if I wasn't properly credited.
I think we each have a responsibility to diligently attend to our own
affairs, so I am sorry I don't have much sympathy if he's let it go so
long without getting it corrected.


Do you live in the United States? If so, I am sincerely happy you
have not had to experience clearing up a governmental mistake. If you
have experienced it, you'd have never have said what you said.


As for your two daughters, I understand that your husband having to be
responsible for his first child or children is going to be tough on the
subsequent children. The person you should really be angry at, however,
is your husband. He had no business producing more children if he was
not supporting his first ones. What you are really saying is that you
children's standard of living should not be reduced so that the first
child may have its needs supported by his or her father. I'll assume
that your husband did not know of the first child when the second
children were born. Your husband knew he was screwing around at some
point without protection and that he might have had this child. In my
opinion the answer is not to deprive the first child so that he may
better support the second two. They should all share. Maybe that means
that he should work an additional job so that he can afford his debts to
all his children.


After several years went by, he had a reasonable expectation that
having children with the woman he married would be his first (and
only) children. Furthermore, I wonder what makes you assume he used
no protection? I was on birth control pills when my eldest was
conceived and birth control pills have a higher success rate in
preventing conception than does anything readily available to a man
(and I'm talking birth control methods commonly used here, not
abstinence or surgery).

The point at hand, however, is that the government affords the younger
children NOTHING when deciding how much the older child should get.
And, given our system, even age is not the determining factor in
deciding which child gets preference. Preference is determined by
date of court order. Is there any reason why a married woman should
have a child support order in place to receive payments from her
husband? These children don't even exist in the eyes of child support
enforcement. So much for thinking that child support enforcement has
children's (as a class) best interests at heart. By the way, an
infant can have preference over a teenager should the court order for
the infant be established first. If you truly believe the children
should share, then our current child support system does not support
your beliefs.


Finally, the link was provided in response to your assertion that there
were not nearly as many deadbeats out there as I have been led to
believe. The link is to the fed's yearly report on child support
collections & includes nationwide and state by state figures.
Nationwide less than 60% of the current support that is supposed to be
paid is, in fact, paid. Further, for all the cases in which payments
fall behind and a delinquency develops, only about 60% of those cases
ever receive even one payment toward that arrearage in a years time.
There are many, many, many more deadbeats out there than people realize
and that report was cited, at your request, to support my assertion.
And thanks to bush and the repugs funding has been slashed to the
program and those numbers may be expected to worsen. As I pointed out,
of course, "worsen" is kind of a relative term. There are many, no
doubt, who will see less vigorous enforcement of child support
obligations as a good thing. My parents, fortunately, raised me better
than that,


If it is the government that is misapplying payments (as well as
consistently behind in applications), how much should we trust their
figures?
Beverly



  #427  
Old January 30th 06, 08:52 AM posted to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.child-support
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Don't Spawn 'Em If You're Gonna Pawn 'Em


"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

* US * wrote in message

...
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 10:18:19 -0800, "garbageteachr"


wrote:

Good--now let's go one step further. Do you believe that both men and
women
are responsible to provide for their children FINANCIALLY?


There's a concept called opportunity cost.
Of course you're too stupid to know what
it means, but it entails the fact that the
person providing caregiving is providing
for the child financially.


Where does the mother who is doing the caretaking get the money to provide
financially? Does the mother earn money at a job? Or do you believe that
the mother should be paid by the father for handling the responsibilities
she took on when she chose to create a child?


I don't know who cracks me up mo the bizarre replies from the other
poster or you dancing with this fool. It's a hoot, to say the least.






  #428  
Old January 30th 06, 09:01 AM posted to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.child-support
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Police: Man faked death to avoid child support

test
"Beverly" wrote in message
news
This news story makes so little sense, IMO. I can't imagine anything
of a legal nature taking only a report of a death as fact and not
requiring a death certificate as proof. There has to be more to this
story.

If I was told that my children's father had died as a cause for
discontinued child support, I'd apply for survivor's benefits through
Social Security for my children. How is it that Social Security would
have never caught this? If these benefits were not applied for, I'd
have to ask why not and wonder if the mother made a deal with the
father that she would call and report his death and not pursue matters
further if he would just walk away (which some mothers would prefer).
If that were the case, the current court would be remiss in letting
her have her cake and eat it too.

On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 19:50:04 GMT, "Winston Smith, American Patriot"
wrote:

laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote in
:


Good idea. Child support is actually wife support.



Wife support?

Don't you mean "that ****ing bitch" support?




http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10924038/

Police: Man faked death to avoid child support
'Ultimate deadbeat dad' now owes more than $30,000 for two kids

Updated: 10:48 a.m. ET Jan. 19, 2006
COLUMBIA, S.C. - Police arrested a man accused of faking his death
more than 25 years ago to avoid paying child support.

Johnny Sterling Martin, 58, had a relative call Family Court in 1979
and report that he died during a bar fight in Alabama, authorities
said. That call came a few months after he escaped from a work detail
while serving a one-year jail term for failing to pay $4,120 in
support for two children.

He was captured Tuesday and jailed, and now owes more than $30,000 in
child support and faces an escape charge, authorities said.

"Johnny Martin is the ultimate deadbeat dad, faking his own death to
avoid paying money to support his young children who were living in
Lexington County," Sheriff James Metts said.

Martin has been living in Myrtle Beach, about 150 miles away, and had
been using his real name for about 20 years, investigators. He has
been married four times - twice since his disappearance - and has a
third child, sheriff's Maj. John Allard said.

The investigation was reopened last week when police got a tip from
one of Martin's ex-wives that he was alive and living in Myrtle Beach.
A fingerprint analysis confirmed Martin's identity, investigators
said.

They are working to identify the caller who told family court Martin
was dead.




Beverly


  #429  
Old January 30th 06, 03:45 PM posted to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.child-support
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Don't Spawn 'Em If You're Gonna Pawn 'Em


"Chris" wrote in message
news:2BjDf.15721$sA3.3058@fed1read02...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

* US * wrote in message

...
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 10:18:19 -0800, "garbageteachr"


wrote:

Good--now let's go one step further. Do you believe that both men and
women
are responsible to provide for their children FINANCIALLY?

There's a concept called opportunity cost.
Of course you're too stupid to know what
it means, but it entails the fact that the
person providing caregiving is providing
for the child financially.


Where does the mother who is doing the caretaking get the money to
provide
financially? Does the mother earn money at a job? Or do you believe
that
the mother should be paid by the father for handling the responsibilities
she took on when she chose to create a child?


I don't know who cracks me up mo the bizarre replies from the other
poster or you dancing with this fool. It's a hoot, to say the least.


I've been finding the responses quite interesting. The idea that a woman is
"providing financially" for a child simply by refusing to go out and get a
job and staying home all day is a bizarre one.


  #430  
Old January 30th 06, 03:46 PM posted to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.child-support
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Don't Spawn 'Em If You're Gonna Pawn 'Em

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 19:04:44 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

... concept foreign ...


You're not good with concepts.

Otherwise, you'd know that any man who does
not want to have children can avoid doing so.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 13:17:11 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

... a drug habit ...


That explains your incapacity to process information
or to ascribe responsibility to men.

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 11:07:26 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

...a quote


I have attributed all quotes correctly.

Learn to locate attributions if you can.

Then learn not to lie about irrelevancies,
and perhaps you'll earn respect someday.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 20:30:13 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

You are attributing words to me that are not even mine.


You are mistaken.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 09:53:00 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

Translation: lack of funds = stupidity.


Apparently you aren't proficient with language.

Those who don't have enough money to support kids
don't need to have any.

Those who can't figure out what it costs shouldn't.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 17:08:26 GMT, "Gini Dimwit" wrote:

... the best you could do ...


I'm not the one having kids I can't afford to raise.

...She has a
choice.
He does not...


You are clueless. Any man who doesn't want to deal
with paternity can get fixed, use contraception, or
keep it in his pants.

Nobody else owes any man management of paternity.

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:42:51 GMT, "Gini Dimwit" wrote:

...I assumed ...


You thus make an ass of yourself.

No one forces a man to undertake fatherhood.

When he does so, he becomes responsible for it.

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 16:27:56 GMT, "Gini" wrote:

Umm...It was the mother (with assistance of the state) whose methods caused


She raped a man and forbade his use of birth control?

Oh, do tell.

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 10:40:44 -0500, "P. Fritz" paulfritz ATvoyager DOTnet wrote:

Yawn


So you're an idiot due to oxygen deprivation.

Thanks for the confirmation.

If only women were held to that standard.


So you hate women and want to try to blame
them for not managing _paternities_.

You're not merely misogynist, but stupid.

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:49:20 -0500, "P. Fritz" paulfritz ATvoyager DOTnet wrote:

Yet another clueless boob.


You must be, if you can't even understand that
responsible adults don't have kids they can't
afford to raise.

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 19:14:35 -0800, "teachrmama" wrote:

...
does not give a rat's tookus if other children are forced into poverty by
their methods ...


Yes, you don't care that your 'methods' cause your own
children to suffer. You can't control yourself.

... the payments garnished from my husband's wages are NOT COUNTED
as paid on time ...


If you weren't really stupid, you could've solved that 'problem'
a long time ago, with but one extra properly-timed payment.

Those as unintelligent as you and your temporary partner
shouldn't be permitted to procreate, actually.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Child Support Policy and the Welfare of Women and Children Dusty Child Support 0 May 13th 04 12:46 AM
Sample US Supreme Court Petition Wizardlaw Child Support 28 January 21st 04 07:23 PM
So much for the claims about Sweden Kane Foster Parents 10 November 5th 03 07:31 AM
| Ex Giants player sentenced-DYFS wrkr no harm noticed Kane Spanking 11 September 16th 03 11:59 AM
Helping Your Child Be Healthy and Fit sX3#;WA@'U John Smith Kids Health 0 July 20th 03 04:50 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.