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

A clarification



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 19th 07, 12:49 PM posted to alt.child-support
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default A clarification


First of all, thanks to everyone for their input on this.

As someone earlier in the thread mentioned, the "cutbacks" are tied to
the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act. The most significant "cut" has to do
with the provision of federal matching funds for incentive payments,
which previously have been awarded based on state child support
enforcement agencies' ability to meet or surpass benchmark performance
indicators. This change is not scheduled to go into effect until this
October, but for some agencies, it could mean a loss of funds
amounting to more than 20 percent of their annual budgets.

I'm not coming to this with an agenda, or with any preconceived
notions. (And no, I didn't go to J school.) This article is policy
analysis, and the sources that I've interviewed so far have been
academics, legislators, and state child support officers.

I've gathered a lot of statistics about typical child support
payments, collection rates, and the relationship between child support
and TANF benefits. The reason I posted my question on this forum is
not to fish for ways to promote some theoretical agenda, but to try to
cast what these statistics mean in terms of actual people's
experiences with the system. I'm certainly aware that anecdotes do
not equal data, which is part of the reason why I'm looking for a
variety of experiences. However, since this article is not about
child support per se, but rather about the amount of funding available
to child support enforcement agencies, I'm looking for sources that
can speak to their experience using state/county child support
enforcement to collect payment from non-custodial parents. I hope you
understand that I'm not dismissing the concerns and experiences of non-
custodial parents with this; those concerns are just tangential to the
purposes of this particular article.

So if you'd like to go on the record to share your experience as a
custodial parent with the system, send me an email at
.

Thanks so much for your help!
Nadia Berenstein

  #2  
Old May 19th 07, 04:09 PM posted to alt.child-support
Werebat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 114
Default A clarification



wrote:

First of all, thanks to everyone for their input on this.

As someone earlier in the thread mentioned, the "cutbacks" are tied to
the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act. The most significant "cut" has to do
with the provision of federal matching funds for incentive payments,
which previously have been awarded based on state child support
enforcement agencies' ability to meet or surpass benchmark performance
indicators. This change is not scheduled to go into effect until this
October, but for some agencies, it could mean a loss of funds
amounting to more than 20 percent of their annual budgets.

I'm not coming to this with an agenda, or with any preconceived
notions. (And no, I didn't go to J school.) This article is policy
analysis, and the sources that I've interviewed so far have been
academics, legislators, and state child support officers.

I've gathered a lot of statistics about typical child support
payments, collection rates, and the relationship between child support
and TANF benefits. The reason I posted my question on this forum is
not to fish for ways to promote some theoretical agenda, but to try to
cast what these statistics mean in terms of actual people's
experiences with the system. I'm certainly aware that anecdotes do
not equal data, which is part of the reason why I'm looking for a
variety of experiences. However, since this article is not about
child support per se, but rather about the amount of funding available
to child support enforcement agencies, I'm looking for sources that
can speak to their experience using state/county child support
enforcement to collect payment from non-custodial parents. I hope you
understand that I'm not dismissing the concerns and experiences of non-
custodial parents with this; those concerns are just tangential to the
purposes of this particular article.

So if you'd like to go on the record to share your experience as a
custodial parent with the system, send me an email at
.

Thanks so much for your help!
Nadia Berenstein


Well, maybe we all SHOULD. I think mostly what you'll get is the
attitude that the cutbacks are a good thing, as that Federal money is
one of the carrots leading some of the worst abuses of men by the family
courts. I doubt that anyone could point to it specifically as messing
with their case -- hey, wait, *I* could. Although I couldn't prove it,
exactly.

Certainly is my opinion though.

- Ron ^*^

  #3  
Old May 19th 07, 05:19 PM posted to alt.child-support
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default A clarification


wrote in message
ups.com...

First of all, thanks to everyone for their input on this.

As someone earlier in the thread mentioned, the "cutbacks" are tied to
the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act. The most significant "cut" has to do
with the provision of federal matching funds for incentive payments,
which previously have been awarded based on state child support
enforcement agencies' ability to meet or surpass benchmark performance
indicators. This change is not scheduled to go into effect until this
October, but for some agencies, it could mean a loss of funds
amounting to more than 20 percent of their annual budgets.

I'm not coming to this with an agenda, or with any preconceived
notions. (And no, I didn't go to J school.) This article is policy
analysis, and the sources that I've interviewed so far have been
academics, legislators, and state child support officers.

I've gathered a lot of statistics about typical child support
payments, collection rates, and the relationship between child support
and TANF benefits. The reason I posted my question on this forum is
not to fish for ways to promote some theoretical agenda, but to try to
cast what these statistics mean in terms of actual people's
experiences with the system. I'm certainly aware that anecdotes do
not equal data, which is part of the reason why I'm looking for a
variety of experiences. However, since this article is not about
child support per se, but rather about the amount of funding available
to child support enforcement agencies, I'm looking for sources that
can speak to their experience using state/county child support
enforcement to collect payment from non-custodial parents. I hope you
understand that I'm not dismissing the concerns and experiences of non-
custodial parents with this; those concerns are just tangential to the
purposes of this particular article.


chuckle And this article is supposed to accomplish exactly what? You
only want to analyze th policy based on how it will affect custodial parents
and CSE employees? Perhaps the change will also have an effect on
noncustodial parents. I can tell you about one "oh-oh--here it comes.
Let's-get-this-money-quick,-while-we-can still-get-bonuses-for-it" effect
that has already hit my family hard! But you go ahead and follow your
"policy analysis" idea, without digging deeper and seeing what is really
happening in the system.


So if you'd like to go on the record to share your experience as a
custodial parent with the system, send me an email at
.

Thanks so much for your help!
Nadia Berenstein



  #4  
Old May 19th 07, 07:19 PM posted to alt.child-support
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 981
Default A clarification


wrote in message
ups.com...

First of all, thanks to everyone for their input on this.

As someone earlier in the thread mentioned, the "cutbacks" are tied to
the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act. The most significant "cut" has to do
with the provision of federal matching funds for incentive payments,
which previously have been awarded based on state child support
enforcement agencies' ability to meet or surpass benchmark performance
indicators. This change is not scheduled to go into effect until this
October, but for some agencies, it could mean a loss of funds
amounting to more than 20 percent of their annual budgets.

I'm not coming to this with an agenda, or with any preconceived
notions. (And no, I didn't go to J school.) This article is policy
analysis, and the sources that I've interviewed so far have been
academics, legislators, and state child support officers.

I've gathered a lot of statistics about typical child support
payments, collection rates, and the relationship between child support
and TANF benefits. The reason I posted my question on this forum is
not to fish for ways to promote some theoretical agenda, but to try to
cast what these statistics mean in terms of actual people's
experiences with the system. I'm certainly aware that anecdotes do
not equal data, which is part of the reason why I'm looking for a
variety of experiences. However, since this article is not about
child support per se, but rather about the amount of funding available
to child support enforcement agencies, I'm looking for sources that
can speak to their experience using state/county child support
enforcement to collect payment from non-custodial parents. I hope you
understand that I'm not dismissing the concerns and experiences of non-
custodial parents with this; those concerns are just tangential to the
purposes of this particular article.


The concept of asking people to comment on statistics is fair, but we need
to know what statistics you want comments on to provide any feedback.

You are getting challenges to your approach because you are coming at this
issue from a limited point of view. In fact, your premise of looking at the
budget changes from the custodial parents point of view flies in the face of
how CS laws are set up to include interaction with both obligors and
obligees.

Here's a few comments:

The CSE statistics regarding arrearages are suspect. Current arrearage
amounts they claim to be trying to collect cover the 31 year period from
1975 through 2006. They collect on average 8% of the total arrearage amount
each year. That means they more than likely overstate arrearage CS owed to
make their mission sound much more important and in need of money to go
after the other 92% which long ago became uncorrectable for any number of
reasons.

CSE statistics on caseloads are suspect. Federal law requires all new and
modified CS order amounts to go through the state CS accounting units. This
law causes an ever increasing number of cases to be managed. It creates a
built-in mechanism to justify ever increasing budget requirements to cover
the increased government workload.

CSE statistics show the high-end orders are collected. It's the low-end
orders they have trouble collecting. The high-end orders would be paid
anyway without any government involvement. CSE is taking credit of
collecting money, and receiving federal bonuses, for collecting CS money
that is paid without any effort on their part.

CSE statistics on amounts owed are suspect. At one point several years ago
it was disclosed that Federal OCSE debt was more than just the total of
orders they had to collect. It also included private agreements as well as
estimates of additional amounts owed if all potential cases had a formal
court order for CS payments. The government got caught inflating their
workload to expand CSE's role in CS enforcement.

The cutbacks in CSE funding have been needed for years. They are designed
to rollback the previous budget increase amounts based on the false and
misleading way the four areas noted above have been used to justify previous
budget increases. The problem you have is no member of the legislature or
employee of state CSE operations is going to own up to the fact they
inflated their budgets based on erroneous statistics and now a downward
adjustment is needed.


  #5  
Old May 21st 07, 02:47 AM posted to alt.child-support
whatamess
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 223
Default A clarification

On May 19, 7:49 am, wrote:
First of all, thanks to everyone for their input on this.

As someone earlier in the thread mentioned, the "cutbacks" are tied to
the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act. The most significant "cut" has to do
with the provision of federal matching funds for incentive payments,
which previously have been awarded based on state child support
enforcement agencies' ability to meet or surpass benchmark performance
indicators. This change is not scheduled to go into effect until this
October, but for some agencies, it could mean a loss of funds
amounting to more than 20 percent of their annual budgets.

I'm not coming to this with an agenda, or with any preconceived
notions. (And no, I didn't go to J school.) This article is policy
analysis, and the sources that I've interviewed so far have been
academics, legislators, and state child support officers.

I've gathered a lot of statistics about typical child support
payments, collection rates, and the relationship between child support
and TANF benefits. The reason I posted my question on this forum is
not to fish for ways to promote some theoretical agenda, but to try to
cast what these statistics mean in terms of actual people's
experiences with the system. I'm certainly aware that anecdotes do
not equal data, which is part of the reason why I'm looking for a
variety of experiences. However, since this article is not about
child support per se, but rather about the amount of funding available
to child support enforcement agencies, I'm looking for sources that
can speak to their experience using state/county child support
enforcement to collect payment from non-custodial parents. I hope you
understand that I'm not dismissing the concerns and experiences of non-
custodial parents with this; those concerns are just tangential to the
purposes of this particular article.

So if you'd like to go on the record to share your experience as a
custodial parent with the system, send me an email at
.

Thanks so much for your help!
Nadia Berenstein


Nadia

Maybe you could further investigate the impact, by researching "how"
the states claim to have
met these "benchmark performance indicators"...

You see, what the state of Texas, which I've heard is one of the ones
who receives the most
funding as the Atty General claims to do so well in collecting money
is the following:

(and yes, I can assure you there are many in the same position)

They go after a non-custodial parent who has been paying child support
directly to the custodial parent.
Then they send them a letter telling them that because they have NO
records of the child support being paid
directly to the custodial parent, the non-custodial parent is
"assumed" to be in "arrears". In our case,
to the tune of 29K...Then, after they damage your credit, put liens on
your property, etc...they allow
you a court date to contest it. If the court finds that you indeed
paid the money directly to the mother,
here's what they do to RAISE their "score" and meet or surpass that
benchmark the feds set...

"They give you a letter stating the "arrears" are paid in full...The
letter does NOT say, that the arrears
were NEVER OWED...they say ONLY, the arrears are paid in full". What
does this do? Well, when
they show their numbers to the feds, they "exceed those benchmarks"
because they've MADE UP
arrears, then show them to the federal government, credit bureaus,
etc...as PAID, and everyone,
including the stupid federal government think "the state of Texas has
actually COLLECTED this amount..."
When in fact, they've done NO SUCH thing...They go after every person
who has divorced in the state of
Texas, because they don't want the custodial parent receiving money
directly...not because they custodial
parent would not receive it, but because the lousy state could not
increase their numbers and therefore,
would not receive as much from the federal government.

With that said, well, then there's the poor loser who changes jobs,
moves every other month...I can tell you
of one specifically that I'm fully aware has 2 liens on his property
for CS cases in Texas, where I personally
called the state of Texas CSE, gave them his cell, his home address,
his parent's address where he moves
to every other month, his place of work, the account number of his new
mortgage and his new wives current
CS case with them, and her place of work, cell number, etc...Do you
know what the state of Texas has done?
NOT A DARN thing! Nope...they called once...couldn't find him, he
quit his job, they stopped chasing him...
period...You see, they only truly only go after the non-custodial
parents who are stable, have paid with or
without the involvement of the courts...those are the only ones who
pay in the state of Texas...the rest?

So, as you do your research on the cuts and it's effect...make sure
you investigate the morons in Texas.
I'm sure the only effects it will have is that maybe the CSE idiots
will now have to actually WORK for a living,
as they're running out of responsible parents who have always paid to
scam...They might actually have
to "find" the others...but, with that said, I'm sure they'll just
begin making up more arrears so that their
numbers increase and they get their money anyway.

  #6  
Old May 21st 07, 05:05 AM posted to alt.child-support
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 981
Default A clarification


wrote in message
ups.com...


I'm not coming to this with an agenda, or with any preconceived
notions. (And no, I didn't go to J school.) This article is policy
analysis, and the sources that I've interviewed so far have been
academics, legislators, and state child support officers.


But Nadia you introduced yourself to this group as being a "Journalist"
seeking input. Now you are admitting you never went to J-School. People
here don't like liars. You came to the wrong place to advance your agenda.


  #7  
Old May 21st 07, 07:35 AM posted to alt.child-support
DB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 712
Default A clarification


wrote in message
This article is policy
analysis, and the sources that I've interviewed so far have been
academics, legislators, and state child support officers.


SO in reality you ask the slave traders how the slave policy is working for
them?


  #8  
Old May 21st 07, 07:41 PM posted to alt.child-support
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 171
Default A clarification

Nadia appears to be a pro-feminist, pro-abortion advocate in the guise
of a journalist.

One needs to simply google "Nadia Berenstein".

On May 21, 12:05 am, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...


I'm not coming to this with an agenda, or with any preconceived
notions. (And no, I didn't go to J school.) This article is policy
analysis, and the sources that I've interviewed so far have been
academics, legislators, and state child support officers.


But Nadia you introduced yourself to this group as being a "Journalist"
seeking input. Now you are admitting you never went to J-School. People
here don't like liars. You came to the wrong place to advance your agenda.



 




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
Clarification on the President's most recent stupid law Moon Shyne Child Support 6 January 18th 06 08:52 PM
38w OB visit/GBS+ and abx clarification Emily Pregnancy 6 August 25th 05 08:07 PM
"Alcohol and pregnancy" clarification needed... Alice Pregnancy 24 February 17th 05 07:13 PM
Okay, Need Clarification, All Nite BreastFeeding? Carol Ann Pregnancy 17 May 5th 04 02:37 AM
Just for Clarification ~ Labor and Delivery Process? Carol Ann Pregnancy 25 March 8th 04 09:43 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:00 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.