Police: Man faked death to avoid child support

"WhyNotMe" wrote in message
news:dIXAf.751194$xm3.160636@attbi_s21...
P. Fritz 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.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

Step #1 Get you head out of your ass
Step #2 Stop Drinking the Koolaid
Step #3 Learn the facts.






And the idiot says......nothing.

You are right, you didn't say anything.

* US * wrote in message news
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.

Yet another clueless boob.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"WhyNotMe" wrote in message
news:OaZAf.751341$xm3.695467@attbi_s21...
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/...rt/#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.

#1 How can it be overdue when the debt never existed until the day the
court said "It's overdue"? If every payment has been made, how can any be
overdue? When each payment has been paid 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

You're not delinquent if you are making the required monthly payments on
time. Duh.

It is obvious that "why" believes in the victimhood of women and has no
desire to hold them accountable nor make them responsible for their own
decisions.



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.

Firstly, I don't owe a thing. Secondly, I did not say anything against
the tax intercepts. In fact, I did not claim my portion of the tax
refund, which I could legally have done, because I do want it paid off as
soon as possible.

Now, here's the biggie, Why. How can you say that the money "should have
been paid in support of the child" when HE DID NOT EVEN KNOW THE CHILD
EXISTED!!!!!!!!!!

And why shouldn't the child support debt information be available to
creditors?

So what if it's available. But they can at least be honest and say that
the debt is being paid on time each month, and that there aer no past due
payments. Becausethat is the truth!

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.

Oh, my dear Why, SHE deserves absolutley nothing from him. SHE has never
worked a day in her life. The arrearages are paid to the government that
has supported her for so long.


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.

You are probably quiet tired--it is getting late. Perhaps you missed the
part about filing a number of complaints and the mess FINALLY being
cleared up. Your beloved CS system is not really quick to fix their
errors. In fact, had we not pointed it out and aggressively pursued it,
they would NEVER have fixed it, and would have collected that money twice.


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.

I am beginning to doubt your ability to comprehend written English. HE
DID NOT KNOW THE CHILD EXISTED UNTIL SHE WAS ALMOST 13!!!! Our children
were 6 and 7 by the time he found out about his older child!!!!!!! Please
do try to pay closer attention.

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.

Are you, perhaps, saying that he owes an equal amount to each child? Your
beloved CS system totally disagrees with you. According to them, he ONLY
owes thefirst child, and our children aer irrelevant. BTW, why do you
think HE should work a second job when the child's mother does not even
work a first job?


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,

I think you need to look more closely at ehat you link is actually saying.
Or read Bob's response to you, and ask him for further clarification.

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.

* US * wrote in message ...
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.

Yawn If only women were held to that standard.


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.

Step #1 Pull your head out of your ass
Step #2 Stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

* US * wrote
...................................

Yes, you don't care that your 'methods' cause your own
children to suffer. You can't control yourself.
===
Umm...It was the mother (with assistance of the state) whose methods caused
the children to suffer--all of them. I'm surprised you didn't catch that.
It really is quite glaring.
===

teachrmama wrote:

IF the father was required to pay for 1/2 the cost to meet the child's basic
needs (shelter, clothing and food--no luxury items) that would be one thing.

That seems relatively fair.



But requiring a man to pay for anything beyond that is way too intrusive.
Married couples aren't required to pay for more than the basic needs of a
child--why should divorced or never married fathers be required to pay
beyond that?

Proof that they are? Cite, please.


Even if the mother is able to cover the basic needs of the child, college is
still not a right, and the father should not be required to start a college
fund.

College is not a right, but starting a fund is a way to show you care
about the children you spawn. I never said he should be required to do
so, I was demonstrating that there are other ways to contribute to a
child's life without it actually being a support payment.


I think that a lot of the complaints aren't about supporting children--but
about the intrusiveness of a system that gets to decide how much children
"need" based on what a man earns.

From the whining we've witnessed, I'd say most of the complaints are
from men who simply don't want to pay - no matter how much they make.


Needs are needs--a child does not "need"
more every time his father gets a raise.

Agreed.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"WhyNotMe" wrote in message
news:%qYAf.508781$084.115205@attbi_s22...
Gini wrote:

"WhyNotMe" wrote
.................................


snip



Well, you are wrong. And ignorant of the system you rave so madly
about. I see the statements each month. He is
counted to be in arrears for the current month on the first of each
month. He is credited for the previous month on
each statement, too. But not on the first. He is credited in the
middle of the month. Two weeks after the money is
garnished. I actually have a letter from the CS offices. They just
changed their name. In that letter it states in
black and white that those who are having their wages garnished will
continue to have them garnished on the same
schedule, even though it will continue to put them in arrears each
month.

Teach - check out the state laws by you? Here, once the wages are
garnished, they have to be sent to the CDE offices
within a specified time frame - I think it's 5 days - and once the CSE
offices receives it, they have to pass it through
within a specified amount of time (here it's 24 hours).

It may well be worth raising a ruckus about the timing, especially if the
forced late postings are because of them.

Your comment above is about how receipts and disbursements are handled.
Teach is talking about how the CS accounting system works.

States create arrearages using a rolling accounting system and bill using a
statement system. Here's how it works:

On the 20th of month #1 the system pre-bills the CS payment accruing on the
first of the next month (month #2). CS garnishments occur in the month #2
pay periods but they arrive at CS accounting after the 20th of the next
month. Receipt of those garnishment payments do not show up on the CS
accounting system as being received until the statement for month #3 is
prepared.

The system creates a 2 month accounting gap between when they accrue
payments and when they apply payments. This accounting gap makes every CS
account appear to be in arrears. To get an accurate accounting of where a
CS account stands an NCP must deduct the pre-billed CS amount and add in
garnishment payments made but not yet credited.

Additionally, the CS accounting system creates arrearages in another way.
The system bills CS payments monthly. When garnishments are made bi-weekly
the CS account will always be in arrears even though the NCP is paying in
exact compliance with a court order.

"Galileo" wrote in message
ups.com...

teachrmama wrote:

IF the father was required to pay for 1/2 the cost to meet the child's
basic
needs (shelter, clothing and food--no luxury items) that would be one
thing.

That seems relatively fair.



But requiring a man to pay for anything beyond that is way too intrusive.
Married couples aren't required to pay for more than the basic needs of a
child--why should divorced or never married fathers be required to pay
beyond that?

Proof that they are? Cite, please.

Any CS payment above what the state pays foster parents is a payment above
the basic needs.

Are you really that clueless?



Even if the mother is able to cover the basic needs of the child, college
is
still not a right, and the father should not be required to start a
college
fund.

College is not a right, but starting a fund is a way to show you care
about the children you spawn. I never said he should be required to do
so, I was demonstrating that there are other ways to contribute to a
child's life without it actually being a support payment.


I think that a lot of the complaints aren't about supporting
children--but
about the intrusiveness of a system that gets to decide how much children
"need" based on what a man earns.

From the whining we've witnessed, I'd say most of the complaints are
from men who simply don't want to pay - no matter how much they make.

In other words......gimme gimme gimme....to hell with the person's rights.



Needs are needs--a child does not "need"
more every time his father gets a raise.

Agreed.

teachrmama wrote:

So if mom is impoverished, she can get government assistance, but if dad is
impoverished he can go to jail?

I don't know, does he have custody of the kids? He can probably get
government assistance too.

I don't have much sympathy for people who have time to work, but don't
do it. Any custodial parent who works is generally either paying for
child care or is at the mercy of the public school system - and has to
find child care over summers, during breaks, and whenever the schools
close for bad weather. Paying for child care on top of all the bills
can be a serious drain. The only other option is to live off the
public dime, and I REALLY wish people would stop doing that.

Of course, if the parent remarried, and one of them is a stay-at-home
parent - and they really don't need the money to cover the basics - I
don't know. There's an argument for you to continue supporting your
own kid, but if the custodial parent doesn't need the money to cover
basics, what else would you contribute to?


Oh, so you are suggesting that a married man whose wife divorces him because
she found someone else should never had fathered children with her just in
case she might some day decide to divorce him?

I hadn't considered that, sorry. I was thinking more of unmarried
couples, or men who leave their families. I've seen that way too often
up here.


Do you really believe that
it is a man's responsibility to support those children *at the same standard
of living they enjoyed before the divorce*? Because that's what the CS
system demands-- the same standard of living.

Probably put there to protect women who were stay-at-home moms who
would have a hard time finding decent-paying jobs. How old is that
law? Has it ever been revised to take into account extenuating
circumstances?



It isn't the *fact" of
support, but the *level* of support that most are complaining about.

That's not the way the arguments are coming through - it sounds like no
one wants to pay at all.


really believe that Dad should get a second job so Junior can continue
playing 3 sports? Or do you think that Junior can scale back a bit so Dad
only has to work one job?

That sounds like abuse of the system, and is the first time I've seen
something so excessive.

Frankly, if the kid wants to play that many sports s/he ought to get a
summer job to help pay for the equipment. I don't think kids have a
right to bankrupt their parents, but they do have a right to be
properly cared for.