Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child support debt?

Illiana wrote:
Gini wrote:
It looks like there are a lot of deadbeat supporters, enablers, and
deadbeats on this usenet group. This particular thread is not for
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
please
move along.
==
I was here first :-)
==
I will not play into your attempts to change the subject.
==
LOL, then I guess you are finished here. This group is for NCPs who have
child support issues. I
guess you're new to usenet. You might want to educate yourself on usenet
etiquette before
barging into a group you know nothing about and making a total fool of
yourself. BTW, why did you
have kids you can't afford? If you didn't want to take care of them, you
should have put them up for
adoption. Why don't you quit whining about how hard you have it and make
yourself more employable?

It is a parenting group (Group Name Parenting Parenting), not strictly for
NCP's who don't want to help out the CP's they have kids with, and you do not
have the monopoly on it.


Uh, no, this is a *Usenet* group that is being appropriated by some
website you are frequenting. I thought you worked 70 hours a week, plus
Saturdays?





--

Sarah Gray

Shadow36 wrote:
It looks like there are a lot of deadbeat supporters, enablers, and
deadbeats on this usenet group. This particular thread is not for
[quoted text clipped - 43 lines]
false.
Move along now; go on to where your rude comments will be appreciated.

Here's a useful comment for you.. Find someone who knows about usenet and
newsgroups, and have them go to alt.child-support. There you will find all
the useless drivel thats been posted by you and your *ahem* co-horts. Then
you can ask your little family web sire why they are cross posting to here.

So you are implying that all custodial parents are in cahoots? It may just be
me, but you sound paranoid.

--
Message posted via FamilyKB.com
http://www.familykb.com/Uwe/Forums.a...nting/200710/1

Sarah Gray wrote:
It looks like there are a lot of deadbeat supporters, enablers, and
deadbeats on this usenet group. This particular thread is not for
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
NCP's who don't want to help out the CP's they have kids with, and you do not
have the monopoly on it.

Uh, no, this is a *Usenet* group that is being appropriated by some
website you are frequenting. I thought you worked 70 hours a week, plus
Saturdays?

So now you are making things up!? What is the purpose of that? Do you even
know to whom you are responding to?

--
Message posted via FamilyKB.com
http://www.familykb.com/Uwe/Forums.a...nting/200710/1

"Illiana via FamilyKB.com" u38194@uwe wrote in message
news:79acd913e32fe@uwe...
Shadow36 wrote:
It looks like there are a lot of deadbeat supporters, enablers, and
deadbeats on this usenet group. This particular thread is not for
[quoted text clipped - 43 lines]
false.
Move along now; go on to where your rude comments will be appreciated.

Here's a useful comment for you.. Find someone who knows about usenet and
newsgroups, and have them go to alt.child-support. There you will find all
the useless drivel thats been posted by you and your *ahem* co-horts. Then
you can ask your little family web sire why they are cross posting to
here.

So you are implying that all custodial parents are in cahoots? It may just
be
me, but you sound paranoid.

Huh? Where on earth did you come up with that? Where did *all custodial
paents* come into this?

teachrmama wrote:
It looks like there are a lot of deadbeat supporters, enablers, and
deadbeats on this usenet group. This particular thread is not for
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]

It is a parenting group (Group Name Parenting Parenting),

I'm certainly not posting to that group--your posts are coming to the group
I am posting to.
Well I am sorry about that, but I am not the one who is in charge of the web
domain, and I don’t have control as to where the thread will be posted. It’s
nice to know that at least one person with opposite views on child support
did not find a need to be blatantly nasty, and bossy.
Why would the Gini identity tell me I had to leave, and she was here first?
Is she like some type of psycho that thinks she is the only person with the
right to post an opposite view?

--
Message posted via FamilyKB.com
http://www.familykb.com/Uwe/Forums.a...nting/200710/1

Gini wrote:
"Paula" wrote
"Gini" wrote:

On Oct 12, 9:47 am, "Gini" wrote:
This group is for NCPs who have
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]

That's what Google provides as the description of the group.
==
Heh, I know. I was just entertaining you. Google did not create
alt.child-support (which has been around since at least 1990--long before
Google
Actually, that description has been around for years as well and its been
incorrect for years (which is very common for unchartered newsgroups such as
acs).
Maybe someday someone will figure out how to get it corrected. I am not a
"founding member." I've only been here since 1997, but I am one of the
longest surviving members. FYI, here's a link to the first postings to
alt.child-support, "certifying" that it *is* and always has been pertaining
to child support issues from the perspective of noncustodial parents:

http://tinyurl.com/2xp4lt

Well, if that is the case, then you could have pointed that out in a mature
manner, instead of going all psycho about it. Since you like to be bossy
(about something you do not own), and feel you can express your views as you
see fit, be a grown-up and extend that courtesy to others.

--
Message posted via http://www.familykb.com

teachrmama wrote:
"Illiana" u38194@uwe wrote in

[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
you
have any advice on how to collect my child support?

Do you know where the father is? Do you communicate with him? Does he see
his child? Do you send pictures, ;etters, homemade cards from child to
father? Very often a healthy relationship with his child is the best way to
get a father to contribute to his child's support needs.
I know where the father is, in fact, we are separated, but reside in the same
home. He doesn't want to work, or pay his share of the rent. I felt child
support was the only way to get him motivated(which it hasn't) to find a job.
I am not a complete bitch, but I am tired of supporting him, and I don't have
the heart to throw him out.
As for him being able to see his child, as I said he lives in our home, but
he doesn't show much of an interest in being a father. He has access to my
son just as much as I do, so I don't think I need to announce when our child
does something creative. All he needs to do is come up out of the basement
and involve himself.

--
Message posted via http://www.familykb.com

teachrmama wrote:
It looks like there are a lot of deadbeat supporters, enablers, and
deadbeats on this usenet group. This particular thread is not for
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
to
bash custodial parents, child support orders, or the government.

I didn't bash anybody. I am simply stating the truth. Anyone who is to
difficult to track down and/or to poor to provide support is basically
ignored by the system. That is absolute fact. Years ago, NCPs were ordered
to send their payments directly to the CP. Wage garnishment was saved for
those recalcitrant few who refused to pay. Now every court order (at least
in my state) is done by wage garnishment. And the system claims to have
collected from all the deadbeats to the tune of however much they collect
through garnishment--even if the person would have paid anyway. I kid you
not.

My sister has a stepson who has fathered at leat 5 children--he has never
had a CS judgement against him, becuase he does not work--the women he
sleeps with support him. The system doesn't bother with him because it
would be a waste of time and money--a d*mn shame, because all the mothers
live on public moneys.

I am not trying to be negative, but the system is unfair to many NCPs, but
it is also unfair to many CPs. That's just the way it is.
I never stated that the system is fair. In the case of the stepson, would he
not be the type of non custodial parent that the system was designed to
enforce? If he is happy living on P.A and not taking care of his kids, is
that any better?
I see a few responders that think child support is welfare, but it is not.
The step son you refer to, his kids, and mothers are on state aid, which is
taking from all of us that work. If there was a child support order, true the
mothers would still get state aid, but the CSE would try to collect the money
from HIM instead of the taxpayers.
Are men that father multiple children and not support them just as bad as
women who refuse to work and collect welfare? It seems that the cause is the
inability for both parents to take responsibility, and the result is welfare.

--
Message posted via http://www.familykb.com

DB wrote:
"Paula" wrote in

Show me one father that doesn't want involvement with their child?

[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]

And the difference in your definitions are?

A Father wantsto be with his children, he doesn't need laws to enforce
this!!!!!!
If that is the case, then why would it even be an issue to pay child-support.
If the Non custodial parent (because there are some women that don’t support
their children) is willing to support their children that is fine, but I
think a lot of custodial parents want a court order for reassurance that that
circumstance doesn’t change.
When people get angry at each other, it is possible that a non custodial
would withhold support for spite, just as a custodial parent may withhold
access to the child.
I personally think that when two people split up they should get an order of
support and a court order for visitation right away, because you never know
how another person may act in an attempt to get at another.

--
Message posted via http://www.familykb.com

"Illiana via FamilyKB.com" u38194@uwe wrote in message
news:79aceaaabfc8c@uwe...
teachrmama wrote:
It looks like there are a lot of deadbeat supporters, enablers, and
deadbeats on this usenet group. This particular thread is not for
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]

It is a parenting group (Group Name Parenting Parenting),

I'm certainly not posting to that group--your posts are coming to the
group
I am posting to.
Well I am sorry about that, but I am not the one who is in charge of the
web
domain, and I don't have control as to where the thread will be posted. It's
nice to know that at least one person with opposite views on child support
did not find a need to be blatantly nasty, and bossy.
Why would the Gini identity tell me I had to leave, and she was here
first?
Is she like some type of psycho that thinks she is the only person with
the
right to post an opposite view?

People posting opposing views have been told to leave this thread or post
only comments considered to be in line with the title of the thread. So if
you have a thread entitled "Does anybody here have any useful advice on how
to collect a child support debt," and you are posting to people who have
been unfairly damaged by excessive child support, do you really think they
should be told that they can only respond if they can give advice on how to
get other people damaged the same way they have been? Nobody here caused
our posts to be sent to this other group--the one you are apparently posting
from. And a lot of the regulars here have been blasted by people posting
from your group, have been told that they are deadbeats for even questioning
the amount of child support they are ordered to pay, and have been
condescended to by other menbers of your group--told that unfair judgements
are not made because the judge looks at all the fact--when some of us here
know that to be untrue. And, the fact of the matter is, the vast majority
of people here do and always have paid their child support. It really is no
wonder that several people here have grown short with those who issue
insults, then demand we stay on "their" subject on "their" terms.