Police: Man faked death to avoid child support

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.
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

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.

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.

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.

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,

"Gini" wrote in message
news:nOYAf.1210$Yi5.459@trndny02...

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

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

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?)

===
So......What you're saying is...you haven't a clue what "counted as
delinquent" means
or how she knows it, but you're sure he isn't considered such?
Interesting.
Appears you need some remedial coursework in CSC/CSE, data collecting,
interpretation, reporting.
===

As for lies, damned lies and statistics, you left out one category -
facts. 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. In addition, only 60% of the cases that
had developed an arrearage receive any sort of payment in any given
year.

===
Damn! Think how much collections would skyrocket if they started forcing
the custodial parent to pay
her share, too!
===
===
I almost decided not to reply to this, but ignorance is such a dangerous
thing that I couldn't just let your statments stand unchallenged.

1. Is English your native language? You appear not to understand the
point I was making by questioning her assertion that her husband had
somehow been "counted as delinquent." If you are not an English speaking
person, then let me suggest that you learn the language. I would guess
that there are not more than 1 or 2 people out of a hundred that did not
understand my point.
===
Your point is clearly understood. You're simply wrong (and it appears to
be you who are having difficulty with the language and comprehension).
===

More likely you are simply intellectually dishonest. Your inaccurate
restatement of my point gives that away. My point was exactly the
opposite - that she had no idea what she was talking about, not that I
did not understand what delinquent meant.
===
Ummm....But she was correct and you were incorrect (and still are even in
your valiant attempt to
redeem yourself).
===
The woman professed that her
husband had paid his child support every month, on time, in full and yet
was still counted as delinquent. I was simply pointing out that if what
she was saying was true there is, by definition, no chance that anyone
would consider him delinquent.
==
And, you are incorrect again.
===
My additional point was that she has no earthly idea how the guy's case
is considered inside the child support system, unless she works within
the system.
===
And you are incorrect again. My statement re remedial coursework stands.
You sure are looking quite silly now. Let me help you out--When her
husband was ordered
to pay support, he was assessed arrearages because the order was made
retroactive to 2 years.
The order then became instantly delinquent and was reported in the data
cell as "delinquent." Any
order that has arrearages is immediately "delinquent."
This is not rocket science. Just in case you are still confused, I'll
review: She's right. You're wrong. How's that?

And the sad thing is that each month's payment is considered late because of
the bookkeeping procedures they use. Only 2 years, 3 months remaining.

"Gini" wrote in message
news:GRYAf.5597$mj3.1244@trndny06...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote
.................................................. .................
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.

There is a serious disconnect between your cited source above and what
you
say your cited source actually says. You are trying to link anecdotal
evidence accumulated and reported by the Census Bureau about CS payments
received based on CP reports with OCSE box scores about what the
government
claims they collect. The two data sources are not related and your
feeble
attempt to link them is disingenuous.
===
Go easy on her, Bob. She has issues.
===
Do you think she is a recipient of child support? Is that why she is so hot
and bothered on the subject?

"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.


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.

"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.

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.

"teachrmama" wrote

"Gini" wrote
.................................................. ..................
And you are incorrect again. My statement re remedial coursework stands.
You sure are looking quite silly now. Let me help you out--When her
husband was ordered
to pay support, he was assessed arrearages because the order was made
retroactive to 2 years.
The order then became instantly delinquent and was reported in the data
cell as "delinquent." Any
order that has arrearages is immediately "delinquent."
This is not rocket science. Just in case you are still confused, I'll
review: She's right. You're wrong. How's that?

And the sad thing is that each month's payment is considered late because
of the bookkeeping procedures they use. Only 2 years, 3 months remaining.
===
Whoohoo! You will experience a feeling of liberation like never before!
(And, believe it
or not, the time does go quickly.)
===
===

"teachrmama" wrote

Do you think she is a recipient of child support? Is that why she is so
hot and bothered on the subject?
===
It is always clear here who benefits from the current system as they rabidly
resist change to same--especially when it comes to
accountability--While demanding that the courts use every available resource
against dad, they are appalled and indignant
if it is suggested that CPs be treated the same way. That's just waaaay too
cumbersome--like having to drop receipts in a box.
===

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"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!

59% of the currently month support is paid.......what happen to the "vast
majority not paying on time"???



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.

"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.

His employer definitely sends the garnished money out on time. I don't know
when it is sent through. There is only that one really big mess-up. But
they definitely count it as late each and every month. They probably get a
little bit more interest for the week or two the current month is counted as
being in arrears. The system is definitely in need of some major repairs.
Will check into making some noise about it!