Back Child Support

I owe x $79,852.00 back child support. The Michigan FOC(Friend of the court)
is charging me 8% interest! I can not afford the $66.00 per week so whatever
I send in does not even pay the interrest!! The arrears never go down!! Both
children are over 18 now. I have since re-married with a 14 year old
daughter. My x never needed Michigan Welfare over the years, so the money is
actuall due her. There is no state interrest. That is to say a period when
my x was on welfare and any payments I make go to pay the system back.
Since I have re-married I wonder if Michigan can go after my wifes assets?
She kept her madian name and everything is in her name.
Any comments???

No they cannot go after any of your wife's assets. Here in Colorado their
is 12% interest but you have to hire a lawyer to get it. CSE doesn't care
about interest at all.


"Brutis" wrote in message
...
I owe x $79,852.00 back child support. The Michigan FOC(Friend of the
court)
is charging me 8% interest! I can not afford the $66.00 per week so
whatever
I send in does not even pay the interrest!! The arrears never go down!!
Both
children are over 18 now. I have since re-married with a 14 year old
daughter. My x never needed Michigan Welfare over the years, so the money
is
actuall due her. There is no state interrest. That is to say a period when
my x was on welfare and any payments I make go to pay the system back.
Since I have re-married I wonder if Michigan can go after my wifes assets?
She kept her madian name and everything is in her name.
Any comments???

I would suspect that if federal funds were involved in helping the family,
such as TANF, CSE is indeed interested in interest to pay back to the Feds
the money the State "borrowed" on behalf of the family the interest (cost of
money). In my case, if the deadbeat bio parent(s) ever pay CSE, much will
be turned back to TANF and the feds first.

--
Tippy
"Tom" wrote in message
news:JNX0d.178172$Fg5.121097@attbi_s53...
No they cannot go after any of your wife's assets. Here in Colorado
their
is 12% interest but you have to hire a lawyer to get it. CSE doesn't care
about interest at all.


"Brutis" wrote in message
...
I owe x $79,852.00 back child support. The Michigan FOC(Friend of the
court)
is charging me 8% interest! I can not afford the $66.00 per week so
whatever
I send in does not even pay the interrest!! The arrears never go down!!
Both
children are over 18 now. I have since re-married with a 14 year old
daughter. My x never needed Michigan Welfare over the years, so the
money
is
actuall due her. There is no state interrest. That is to say a period
when
my x was on welfare and any payments I make go to pay the system back.
Since I have re-married I wonder if Michigan can go after my wifes
assets?
She kept her madian name and everything is in her name.
Any comments???

"Brutis" wrote in message
...
I owe x $79,852.00 back child support. The Michigan FOC(Friend of the
court)
is charging me 8% interest! I can not afford the $66.00 per week so
whatever
I send in does not even pay the interrest!! The arrears never go down!!
Both
children are over 18 now. I have since re-married with a 14 year old
daughter. My x never needed Michigan Welfare over the years, so the money
is
actuall due her. There is no state interrest. That is to say a period when
my x was on welfare and any payments I make go to pay the system back.
Since I have re-married I wonder if Michigan can go after my wifes assets?
She kept her madian name and everything is in her name.
Any comments???
---------------
No they can't go after your wifes assets. But I would keep everything in
her name, like the house or cars. The interest rates are outrageous. They
keep you enslaved for the rest of your life.

~AZ~

"AZ Astrea" wrote in message
...

"Brutis" wrote in message
...
I owe x $79,852.00 back child support. The Michigan FOC(Friend of the
court)
is charging me 8% interest! I can not afford the $66.00 per week so
whatever
I send in does not even pay the interrest!! The arrears never go down!!
Both
children are over 18 now. I have since re-married with a 14 year old
daughter. My x never needed Michigan Welfare over the years, so the
money
is
actuall due her. There is no state interrest. That is to say a period
when
my x was on welfare and any payments I make go to pay the system back.
Since I have re-married I wonder if Michigan can go after my wifes
assets?
She kept her madian name and everything is in her name.
Any comments???
---------------
No they can't go after your wifes assets. But I would keep everything in
her name, like the house or cars. The interest rates are outrageous.
They
keep you enslaved for the rest of your life.

~AZ~

I have no comment about whether the system is fair in other ways-- but the
interest rate is not so bad. And, one can certainly borrow the money and
pay that interest-- if one thinks 8 percent is bad. Think for a minute
that the people who need the money for the child's needs could borrow on the
asset, the husband's debt. How much interest do you think she would have to
pay? Likewise, if the government is paying her, what is their cost of
money?

"Tippy" wrote in message
news:M_71d.38196$Ka6.19297@okepread03...

"AZ Astrea" wrote in message
...

"Brutis" wrote in message
...
I owe x $79,852.00 back child support. The Michigan FOC(Friend of the
court)
is charging me 8% interest! I can not afford the $66.00 per week so
whatever
I send in does not even pay the interrest!! The arrears never go down!!
Both
children are over 18 now. I have since re-married with a 14 year old
daughter. My x never needed Michigan Welfare over the years, so the
money
is
actuall due her. There is no state interrest. That is to say a period
when
my x was on welfare and any payments I make go to pay the system back.
Since I have re-married I wonder if Michigan can go after my wifes
assets?
She kept her madian name and everything is in her name.
Any comments???
---------------
No they can't go after your wifes assets. But I would keep everything in
her name, like the house or cars. The interest rates are outrageous.
They
keep you enslaved for the rest of your life.

~AZ~

I have no comment about whether the system is fair in other ways-- but the
interest rate is not so bad. And, one can certainly borrow the money and
pay that interest-- if one thinks 8 percent is bad. Think for a minute
that the people who need the money for the child's needs could borrow on
the
asset, the husband's debt. How much interest do you think she would have
to
pay? Likewise, if the government is paying her, what is their cost of
money?

Well, Tippy, if you were talking about real deadbeats, I might agree with
you somewhat. But that is not necessarily the case. For example, my
husband found out he had a daughter, the result of a one night stand, when
the child was almost 13 years old. He almost got stuck with 13 years of
arrearages at his current salary because of some shenanigans by the local
DA's office in not notifying him properly. Fortunately, we found out due to
the error of a lackey, and were able to file for a paternity test. He did
turn out to be the father of this child, but was charged only 2 years
arrearages--fortunately we live in a state where they can only go back 2
years from proof of paternity. Now, Tippy, why should he have to pay 10%
interest on that money? The fact that he never got to be a father to the
child was 100% the MOTHER's choice! The fact that he now owes arrearages is
100% due to the MOTHER's decisions! Do you really think she has a right to
whine about not getting the $$$ when she is the one that kept the existence
of the child from her father for that many years?

How about a man who loses his high paying job due to, say, it being shipped
overseas. He can't find a job at the same rate of pay, so he takes a lower
paying one. BUT the judge, in his great wisdom, says "Ah, you and all the
other thousands of guys who lost your jobs due to them being shipped
overseas are just faking it. I am going to impute your salary to it's
former level, even if you are only making half that amount now." The
arrearages are going to build quickly in such a situation. Do you really
think that the man should have to pay interest on that money? Do you really
perceive that to be fair?

There are many reasons that arrearages might have accrued. Interest on top
of some of the devastating circumstances men have been through is just
adding insult to injury. I realize that you are apparently looking at a
true deadbeat. But, as you seem to have experienced, the system does not
often go after the true deadbeats--they are too hard to pin down. They go
after the honest men like my husband who would do his best to pay anyway.
Then they claim to have nailed another "deadbeat" to the wall. It's all
political, and has little to do with children.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Tippy" wrote in message
news:M_71d.38196$Ka6.19297@okepread03...

"AZ Astrea" wrote in message
...

"Brutis" wrote in message
...
I owe x $79,852.00 back child support. The Michigan FOC(Friend of the
court)
is charging me 8% interest! I can not afford the $66.00 per week so
whatever
I send in does not even pay the interrest!! The arrears never go
down!!
Both
children are over 18 now. I have since re-married with a 14 year old
daughter. My x never needed Michigan Welfare over the years, so the
money
is
actuall due her. There is no state interrest. That is to say a period
when
my x was on welfare and any payments I make go to pay the system
back.
Since I have re-married I wonder if Michigan can go after my wifes
assets?
She kept her madian name and everything is in her name.
Any comments???
---------------
No they can't go after your wifes assets. But I would keep everything
in
her name, like the house or cars. The interest rates are outrageous.
They
keep you enslaved for the rest of your life.

~AZ~

I have no comment about whether the system is fair in other ways-- but
the
interest rate is not so bad. And, one can certainly borrow the money
and
pay that interest-- if one thinks 8 percent is bad. Think for a minute
that the people who need the money for the child's needs could borrow on
the
asset, the husband's debt. How much interest do you think she would
have
to
pay? Likewise, if the government is paying her, what is their cost of
money?

Well, Tippy, if you were talking about real deadbeats, I might agree with

you somewhat. But that is not necessarily the case. For example, my
husband found out he had a daughter, the result of a one night stand, when
the child was almost 13 years old. He almost got stuck with 13 years of
arrearages at his current salary because of some shenanigans by the local
DA's office in not notifying him properly. Fortunately, we found out due
to
the error of a lackey, and were able to file for a paternity test. He did
turn out to be the father of this child, but was charged only 2 years
arrearages--fortunately we live in a state where they can only go back 2
years from proof of paternity. Now, Tippy, why should he have to pay 10%
interest on that money? The fact that he never got to be a father to the
child was 100% the MOTHER's choice! The fact that he now owes arrearages
is
100% due to the MOTHER's decisions! Do you really think she has a right
to
whine about not getting the $$$ when she is the one that kept the
existence
of the child from her father for that many years?

How about a man who loses his high paying job due to, say, it being
shipped
overseas. He can't find a job at the same rate of pay, so he takes a
lower
paying one. BUT the judge, in his great wisdom, says "Ah, you and all the
other thousands of guys who lost your jobs due to them being shipped
overseas are just faking it. I am going to impute your salary to it's
former level, even if you are only making half that amount now." The
arrearages are going to build quickly in such a situation. Do you really
think that the man should have to pay interest on that money? Do you
really
perceive that to be fair?

And what about men that simply take a lower paying job to reduce the stress
level / time commitment. Happens all the time in two parent
households.....the child(ren) then live with the reduced lifestyle. Only an
NCP is not granted that right......and somehow those children automatically
become 'entitled' to a percentage of a parent's income.


There are many reasons that arrearages might have accrued. Interest on
top
of some of the devastating circumstances men have been through is just
adding insult to injury. I realize that you are apparently looking at a
true deadbeat. But, as you seem to have experienced, the system does not
often go after the true deadbeats--they are too hard to pin down. They go
after the honest men like my husband who would do his best to pay anyway.
Then they claim to have nailed another "deadbeat" to the wall. It's all
political, and has little to do with children.

I'll insert comments among your comments. Good questions -- different
perspective and spheres of influence.

//snipped//

I have no comment about whether the system is fair in other ways-- but
the
interest rate is not so bad. And, one can certainly borrow the money
and
pay that interest-- if one thinks 8 percent is bad. Think for a minute
that the people who need the money for the child's needs could borrow on
the
asset, the husband's debt. How much interest do you think she would
have
to
pay? Likewise, if the government is paying her, what is their cost of
money?

Well, Tippy, if you were talking about real deadbeats, I might agree with
you somewhat. But that is not necessarily the case. For example, my
husband found out he had a daughter, the result of a one night stand, when
the child was almost 13 years old. He almost got stuck with 13 years of
arrearages at his current salary because of some shenanigans by the local
DA's office in not notifying him properly. Fortunately, we found out due
to
the error of a lackey, and were able to file for a paternity test. He did
turn out to be the father of this child, but was charged only 2 years
arrearages--fortunately we live in a state where they can only go back 2
years from proof of paternity.

First, comments apply to deliberate deadbeats, not those who try to take
care of kids. Our perspective is different because the father is not liable
here (VA) until after the paternity test--- not sure if it is the date of
the test or a determination but thats nitpicking.


Now, Tippy, why should he have to pay 10%
interest on that money? The fact that he never got to be a father to the
child was 100% the MOTHER's choice! The fact that he now owes arrearages
is
100% due to the MOTHER's decisions! Do you really think she has a right
to
whine about not getting the $$$ when she is the one that kept the
existence
of the child from her father for that many years?

I have mixed feelings on that. Unsure how I would respond when all facts
in. However, it's not the mother we are discussing, it is the child's
entitlement. Who paid the hospital for the delivery? Who incurred all the
costs of the first 2 years. If it was the mother, then funds that could be
set aside for the child probably weren't, say for a college fund or
something. That said, the mother could just blow the money without using
the money for the benefit of the child. No one is omniscient, thus you make
the decision that most likely would benefit the child. The answer learned
late is, as we said in the Army, "blouse your boots." Then one doesn't have
to worry too much about "surprises" of any kind.


How about a man who loses his high paying job due to, say, it being
shipped
overseas. He can't find a job at the same rate of pay, so he takes a
lower
paying one. BUT the judge, in his great wisdom, says "Ah, you and all the
other thousands of guys who lost your jobs due to them being shipped
overseas are just faking it. I am going to impute your salary to it's
former level, even if you are only making half that amount now." The
arrearages are going to build quickly in such a situation. Do you really
think that the man should have to pay interest on that money? Do you
really
perceive that to be fair?

Same answer as above.


There are many reasons that arrearages might have accrued. Interest on
top
of some of the devastating circumstances men have been through is just
adding insult to injury. I realize that you are apparently looking at a
true deadbeat. But, as you seem to have experienced, the system does not
often go after the true deadbeats--they are too hard to pin down. They go
after the honest men like my husband who would do his best to pay anyway.
Then they claim to have nailed another "deadbeat" to the wall. It's all
political, and has little to do with children.

I don't agree, it **is ** about children. What spouses(exes) can't do is
forget the other spouse and the wrongs that they did or are trying to do.
Substitute a neutral, caring, and dutiful party as the caregiver for the
child in place of the ex; would you still feel the way you do about what
benefits the child is entitled?

Children are not inexpensive to care for--and those in arrears can likely
borrow the money to catch up. Sacrifice a few years and pay off the loan.
Those who are raising children make a lot of sacrifices beyond money. They
get a lot of rewards, too. The non custodial parent(s) often don't get it.
I had no children of my own and was very intolerant of those colleagues and
subordinates who couldn't make it to work on time because of pressing family
matters or had to leave to take care of kids. Geez-- did I get a rude
awakening to parenthood all at once!

What I don't like is "judges" who are not answerable to anyone, appointed,
elected, or whatever. I think oversight panels should exist, and I think
people subjected to these "decisions" should have the right to appeal to the
executive branch where an appeal board reviews the facts and presents them
to the Governor for a final decision when the majority of the appeal board
believes an injustice has occurred.

And what about men that simply take a lower paying job to reduce the
stress
level / time commitment. Happens all the time in two parent
households.....the child(ren) then live with the reduced lifestyle. Only
an
NCP is not granted that right......and somehow those children
automatically
become 'entitled' to a percentage of a parent's income.

The child did not have a choice, the adult does. My stress nearly topped
out for me.

For nearly 1 1/2 life was hell. I accepted physical custody of 3 kids. At
the time, one preschool, one 1st grade the other 2nd. I had intended to
leave Virginia and go to LV for retirement. Instead, I found caregivers in
DC because the kids were in DC schools (mother forced to put them in school
there as she left VA) although abandoned in VA. I work in DC and dropped
the kids at day care so they wouldn't get disrupted and could finish in the
DC school. My commute time was extensive. Then home, fix meals, go over
homework, give each attention and prepare for the next day. Usually to bed
no earlier than 1 pm. Chores -- washing clothes, buying clothes, mental
counseling for the children, parenting classes, nurturing classes, case
workers up the yazoo, 3 guardian ad litems, 3-5 lawyers, CARE workers, and
mentors. Case workers telling you that the brother and sister have to be
in different rooms and dealing with how to put 3 children in two rooms and
placing a 3 or 4 year old in room by himself for the first time in his life.
Up at 6, breakfast and begin the long commute again. Work suffered--
fortunately my reputation and past work allowed my superiors to give me time
to get back to speed. I didn't see friends or family for nearly a year and
saw to the needs of the kids BECAUSE that's what it took. Much of the
stress dropped off when the courts finally gave me legal custody after they
were comfortable that the various bio parents were out of the picture. You
make the sacrifices because it is the right thing to do. Now-- you want to
talk about a little stress that causes someone to take a lower paying job.
Sorry, no sympathy here.

One can always find an excuse not to do what one should and convince himself
that what he/she is doing is right.
Trust me, I've made the excuses myself in other situations. Kids can't wait
for the adult to mature and take responsibility-- they need immediate help
so that they can grow up to be physically and mentally healthy.

"Tippy" wrote in message
news:1at1d.2201$fA1.69@lakeread02...
I'll insert comments among your comments. Good questions -- different
perspective and spheres of influence.

//snipped//

I have no comment about whether the system is fair in other ways-- but
the
interest rate is not so bad. And, one can certainly borrow the money
and
pay that interest-- if one thinks 8 percent is bad. Think for a
minute
that the people who need the money for the child's needs could borrow
on
the
asset, the husband's debt. How much interest do you think she would
have
to
pay? Likewise, if the government is paying her, what is their cost of
money?

Well, Tippy, if you were talking about real deadbeats, I might agree with
you somewhat. But that is not necessarily the case. For example, my
husband found out he had a daughter, the result of a one night stand,
when
the child was almost 13 years old. He almost got stuck with 13 years of
arrearages at his current salary because of some shenanigans by the local
DA's office in not notifying him properly. Fortunately, we found out due
to
the error of a lackey, and were able to file for a paternity test. He
did
turn out to be the father of this child, but was charged only 2 years
arrearages--fortunately we live in a state where they can only go back 2
years from proof of paternity.

First, comments apply to deliberate deadbeats, not those who try to take
care of kids. Our perspective is different because the father is not
liable
here (VA) until after the paternity test--- not sure if it is the date of
the test or a determination but thats nitpicking.


Now, Tippy, why should he have to pay 10%
interest on that money? The fact that he never got to be a father to the
child was 100% the MOTHER's choice! The fact that he now owes arrearages
is
100% due to the MOTHER's decisions! Do you really think she has a right
to
whine about not getting the $$$ when she is the one that kept the
existence
of the child from her father for that many years?

I have mixed feelings on that. Unsure how I would respond when all facts
in. However, it's not the mother we are discussing, it is the child's
entitlement.

What gives you the ideathat the child has an "entitlement"? That's what I
don't understand. Children live with the choices their parents make. In
this case, the MOTHER made the decisions. And the child lived with them.
Why should the child or anyone else get to go back and cry foul, and
penalize another person for the decisions of that mother. And, yes, Tippy,
it is a great penalty to us! Why should our family now suffer for the poor
decisions of the only one who had any choices? Do you, as the courts so
elegantly put it, feel that our 2 children are "irrelevant"?

Who paid the hospital for the delivery? Who incurred all the
costs of the first 2 years. If it was the mother, then funds that could
be
set aside for the child probably weren't, say for a college fund or
something.

Sorry, Tippy, but the MOTHER had the opportunity to get dad to help pay for
everything all along. SHE, and she alone, made the decision to do without
dad's help. The consequences are hers and hers alone. She as the child's
sole caretaker, made the decisions. ONLY SHE owes the child for that!

That said, the mother could just blow the money without using
the money for the benefit of the child. No one is omniscient, thus you
make
the decision that most likely would benefit the child. The answer learned
late is, as we said in the Army, "blouse your boots." Then one doesn't
have
to worry too much about "surprises" of any kind.

Well, be that as it may, MOTHER chose to forego dad's contributions, and to
raise her child without dad.



How about a man who loses his high paying job due to, say, it being
shipped
overseas. He can't find a job at the same rate of pay, so he takes a
lower
paying one. BUT the judge, in his great wisdom, says "Ah, you and all
the
other thousands of guys who lost your jobs due to them being shipped
overseas are just faking it. I am going to impute your salary to it's
former level, even if you are only making half that amount now." The
arrearages are going to build quickly in such a situation. Do you really
think that the man should have to pay interest on that money? Do you
really
perceive that to be fair?

Same answer as above.

Are you trying to say that the needs (actually, wants) of the child should
be paramount, no matter who gets trampled in the name of that goal? I'm not
sure exactly what you are saying by "same answer as above."


There are many reasons that arrearages might have accrued. Interest on
top
of some of the devastating circumstances men have been through is just
adding insult to injury. I realize that you are apparently looking at a
true deadbeat. But, as you seem to have experienced, the system does not
often go after the true deadbeats--they are too hard to pin down. They
go
after the honest men like my husband who would do his best to pay anyway.
Then they claim to have nailed another "deadbeat" to the wall. It's all
political, and has little to do with children.

I don't agree, it **is ** about children. What spouses(exes) can't do is
forget the other spouse and the wrongs that they did or are trying to do.
Substitute a neutral, caring, and dutiful party as the caregiver for the
child in place of the ex; would you still feel the way you do about what
benefits the child is entitled?

I don't agree that the child is entitled to a certain amount of benefits. I
think that all parties involved have to be taken into consideration. I
think it is abhorrent that the courts have stated that they don't give a
rat's tush how the 2 children and I have are supported, so long as the older
child just discovered is supported to the fullest. My husband's child
support check, BTW, goes to support not only his child but all the other
children in the home by all the not-yet-discovered fathers, and the woman
who brought them all into the world--the same woman who has never worked a
day in her life. SHE is not reaponsible for dime one--but they can take our
home if my husband becomes ill or injured and cannot work. So, Tippy, do
you think that this older child has such an entitlement that our 2 children
should lose their home just in the name of this older child's "entitlement"?

There are others on this newsgroup whose CS payments pay not only for the
child they are intended to support, but for other children (and the ex) as
well. Are all of these people "entitled"?

Children are not inexpensive to care for--and those in arrears can likely
borrow the money to catch up. Sacrifice a few years and pay off the loan.
Those who are raising children make a lot of sacrifices beyond money.
They
get a lot of rewards, too. The non custodial parent(s) often don't get
it.

Perhaps they would like to be more a part of their children's lives.
Perhaps 50/50 custody could solve this issue.

I had no children of my own and was very intolerant of those colleagues
and
subordinates who couldn't make it to work on time because of pressing
family
matters or had to leave to take care of kids. Geez-- did I get a rude
awakening to parenthood all at once!

Be that as it may, money does not replace a parent, and to take away a
parent's time with the children, and demand that the time be replaced with
money is outrageous! Perhaps a little more research into the realities of
the child support system would be in order for you, Tippy. You might find
yourself having another rude awakening.


What I don't like is "judges" who are not answerable to anyone, appointed,
elected, or whatever. I think oversight panels should exist, and I think
people subjected to these "decisions" should have the right to appeal to
the
executive branch where an appeal board reviews the facts and presents them
to the Governor for a final decision when the majority of the appeal board
believes an injustice has occurred.

I, personally, think the government shoud keep it's nose out of family
matter and let the adults involved act like adults and work things out for
themselves. I firmly believe that if the government weren't involved, and
so obviously on the side of the women, most of the "problems" we supposedly
see would vanish on their own. The, the government only in the most
egregious cases, instead of tarring every man with the same "deadbeat"
brush!