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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Unleash the Bill Collectors on Deadbeat Dads
"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message ... Ive seen this on some sites, one in particular called ANCPR which tries to use tables that show how the CP makes out in the end. It basically takes the support for the child out of the NCP's income and then adds this amount to the CP's income coming out with the ending income of the CP's income higher. IT fails however to take the expenses of raising a child out of the CP's income, probably because it would show the CP worse off financially in the long run. OK, I'm going to use some basic, simple math and show you where this is wrong. Bill and Mary both work and make about the same amount of money. For the sake of convenience, lets say that they each make $40,000 a year, pre-tax. Or $26,940 take home (post-tax of 32.65% includes state (5.5%) and federal taxes (19.5%), plus social security and Medicaid deductions (7.65%)). They have a combined income of $53,880 Or.. $40,000 - 32.65% = $26,940 Bill and Mary have two (2) kids, she hears that she can make out like a bandit from her girlfriend Anna. Mary divorces Bill on grounds of irreconcilable differences, gets the kids, the car, the house, the tax break from having custody of the kids, but she does have to pay half of the combined marital debt ($5200), gets $600 a month in CS from Bill's job as an arm-chair tester. Bill is ordered by the court to pay 50% of the mortgage on the house ($600), 50% of the marital debt ($5200), must keep up with the car payments ($150) and the insurance ($100), must pay CS of $600 (pre-tax, so he must pay the taxes on this money). On top of all this, he is expected to keep a place of his own, do all the transportation of the kids to and from his place (he gets them every Wednesday and every other weekend), get a car for himself, food and clothing for himself and the children (including paying for toys, pots and pans, etc..). So, let's see what we have now, OK? Bill brings home $518.08 per week, after taxes. Or $2245 per month. For clarity, I'm going to use with the monthly amount to see what Bill will have each month to spend on himself. $2245.00 - $600.00 CS -$150.00 Car -$100.00 Insurance -$600.00 Mortgage -$100.00 Marital Debt ----------- $695.00 So after all that, we see that Bill has $695.00 a month to work with. What I haven't deducted is the cost of a 3 bedroom apartment, cost of upkeep for his car, car payments, insurance for said car, food, clothing and other basic things. Now, let's look at Mary... $2245.00 + $600.00 CS -$600.00 Mortgage -$100.00 Marital Debt ----------- $2145.00 Looks to me like Mary's makin' out very well. OK, now let's say the market in Arm-chair Testers falters in the stock market. He finds himself facing the prospect of being out of work for several months. As soon as Bill is out of work he goes to court and requests a decrease of the CS (because he has no idea how long he'll be out of work and doesn't want to get behind and find himself one of those dreaded "Dead Beat Dads"). The judge says no and INCREASES his CS. The judge calls it "incentive". On top of that Mary's attorney convinces the court that Bill is behind in his CS (he isn't, Mary's attorney did the math wrong) by $5200.00 (this is the marital debt - it is NOT CS and cannot become CS by the wave of a hand). The judge says "OK, he's behind in CS payments of $5200.00 So, to make him pay I'm increasing the CS to $1000.00 per month to pay this off." SO, let's do the math again... Bill has $695.00 per month to live on and now has an additional $400 arrears to cover. $695.00 -$400.00 ----------- $295.00 So tell me FFK, can you live on less then $300 a month? Muchless care for your kids when they are with you. I can't. Oh, let's not forget Mary's change in monthly available cash flow... $2145 + $400 = $2545.00 Hummmm.... I see that Mary is now making more then she ever had before... And so, 24 months later, Bill is still not employed, he's threatened with jail time, has been back to court several times, with no luck at getting his CS lowered and is considering suicide to end the constant emotional pain of not being able to see his kids. The total debt is now a whopping $29,300.00 Bill has been living in shelters, working menial jobs (most, if not all, of the money taken by the local Child Support Agency), has no car, phone, or home. His credit is ruined because of the way the laws are written. He can get work, but the job is in India and because of the way the laws (if you owe $5000 or more in CS, you don't get a passport) are written, he can't go. This is what is known as a "Catch-22". And divorced fathers face this every day. This isn't "evading child support", it's a father that can't make payments because he's been ruined by the bias of the courts, a vengeful ex-wife, a greedy attorney and illegal laws. Is what happened to Bill all his fault. No. Could he have done something about it? Perhaps, but with the bias in the courts, that option was deigned him. Now, he is financially in ruins and may never make it out of the hole he's in. For that matter, he cannot see his children because they are in another state (mother moved to be closer to her family). Is this what's in the best interest of the children? No. Is Bill's treatment by the court unusual? NO, it is typical. So, tell me how this is a good thing? I have no sympathy for someone who is 50,000 behind on support, or makes no payments at all for months at a time or even years. It isn't about moving from job to job, its about evading child support. Its about making sacrifices for your children which apparently the NCP isn't willing to make. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Unleash the Bill Collectors on Deadbeat Dads
"cigon" wrote in message
... t. But the American Fathers Coalition -- a group of child-support payers -- claims the delinquency figures are inflated by mothers' This is a reasonable claim. Often the CP claims support based on what she THINKS the NCP should be making, not on any realistic amounts. Cameron |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Unleash the Bill Collectors on Deadbeat Dads
"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message ... Unleash the Bill Collectors on Deadbeat Dads By Gary S. Becker July 18, 1994 BusinessWeek More than one in five U.S. children live in poverty. This is mainly because of a spectacular growth in the number of families headed by unmarried mothers, compounded by low or nonexistent child-support payments by noncustodial fathers. Fortunately for the children, as well as the mothers, it is possible to greatly increase the number of fathers who meet their obligations. ..... anyway FFK, Rather than spewing all these stories can you form your own arguements? Aside from certain issues with copyright your attempts to flood the group with these stories do not really add to any particular cause. Inflaming a situation does not contribute to resolution. We might just value your opinions if you stated a significant argument Links to relevant facts are helpful, use the links to support arguments, but don't flood. Cameron |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Unleash the Bill Collectors on Deadbeat Dads
First of all the income of the father is reported by the father NOT what the
NCP "women" wants to report. In fact most states require three years of tax returns as well as recent pay stubs from each party to determine the amount of CS that should be paid. "Cameron Stevens" wrote in message ... "cigon" wrote in message ... t. But the American Fathers Coalition -- a group of child-support payers -- claims the delinquency figures are inflated by mothers' This is a reasonable claim. Often the CP claims support based on what she THINKS the NCP should be making, not on any realistic amounts. Cameron |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Unleash the Bill Collectors on Deadbeat Dads
I'm not "flooding" any more than you cronies here that insist that you are
right. Much of what you say is simply cut and pasted from other "men's rights" sights. "Cameron Stevens" wrote in message ... "Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message ... Unleash the Bill Collectors on Deadbeat Dads By Gary S. Becker July 18, 1994 BusinessWeek More than one in five U.S. children live in poverty. This is mainly because of a spectacular growth in the number of families headed by unmarried mothers, compounded by low or nonexistent child-support payments by noncustodial fathers. Fortunately for the children, as well as the mothers, it is possible to greatly increase the number of fathers who meet their obligations. .... anyway FFK, Rather than spewing all these stories can you form your own arguements? Aside from certain issues with copyright your attempts to flood the group with these stories do not really add to any particular cause. Inflaming a situation does not contribute to resolution. We might just value your opinions if you stated a significant argument Links to relevant facts are helpful, use the links to support arguments, but don't flood. Cameron |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Unleash the Bill Collectors on Deadbeat Dads
"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message ... No, but when I can see information that backs it up..yep. In the case of these articles, there are figures and studies that back them up. What figures from where? "Chris" wrote in message news:HEprb.11960$0K6.11380@fed1read06... "Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message ... Just posting articles that are relavant to the issues at in the group. You all say that deadbeats dont exsist that they are all just men trying their hardest to pay their support. These articles show otherwise. You believe everything you see in print? "Chris" wrote in message news:gykrb.10217$0K6.6349@fed1read06... "Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message ... Unleash the Bill Collectors on Deadbeat Dads By Gary S. Becker July 18, 1994 BusinessWeek More than one in five U.S. children live in poverty. This is mainly because of a spectacular growth in the number of families headed by unmarried mothers, compounded by low or nonexistent child-support payments by noncustodial fathers. Fortunately for the children, as well as the mothers, it is possible to greatly increase the number of fathers who meet their obligations. It is far too easy for fathers to dump the financial as well as the emotional burdens of raising children on mothers. More men will hesitate to father children if they know they'll have a tougher time evading the duty to support them. Children can benefit emotionally as well as materially when their fathers support them. And if more dads were forced to pay up, they might be more likely to spend time with their kids -- since they would no longer be avoiding detection. A 1993 Urban Institute study estimates that incomes of many one-parent families would rise above the poverty level if all child-support obligations were met. But the American Fathers Coalition -- a group of child-support payers -- claims the delinquency figures are inflated by mothers' failure to report the payments they receive. This coalition also believes fathers sometimes fall into arrears because child-support awards are excessive. This group makes some valid points, but it is still important to improve compliance with child-support obligations. Congress passed legislation in 1984 and 1988 requiring states to make stronger collection efforts, with the Federal government footing most of the bill. It is now easier to garnishee wages, even when fathers have moved to other states, and to jail those who refuse to pay. Computer systems allow states to keep better track of where fathers live and how much they owe. PATERNITY WARDS As part of his welfare-reform package, President Clinton recently proposed stiffening these laws by establishing national clearinghouses to track interstate cases, by denying occupational permits and driver's licenses to fathers who don't pay up (some states already have such rules), and by requiring hospitals to establish and record who the father is for every baby born. Although federal laws and state efforts have increased the numbers of fathers who pay up, statistics compiled by the Health & Human Services Dept.'s Office of Child Support Enforcement show that state agencies are collecting money in less than 19% of their child-support cases. Many fathers continue to successfully avoid detection by state governments -- in some cases by fleeing to another state. One reason for the low figure is that state collection agencies concentrate on helping mothers on welfare, including efforts to establish the identity of the fathers. States emphasize welfare cases because public spending is reduced when families receive enough child support to go off welfare. But many women not on welfare are also failing to get the support due them. Some women who were not being helped by state agencies have turned to private collectors to track down the fathers of their children. These collectors have often been quite successful: They may garnishee the wages of fathers or get local authorities to jail deadbeats until they pay up. BOUNTY HUNTERS? Private collectors usually charge a small nonrefundable fee, but their main source of revenue is a contingency payment that usually ranges from one-quarter to one-third of what they collect. This may seem like a big cut, but these fractions are not out of line with fees charged by companies collecting other kinds of debt. Yet some children's advocacy groups oppose the involvement of for-profit collection companies, because they hate to see large sums being siphoned off that should be going to the children. But mothers usually turn to private companies only after they fail to get what is due them through ordinary channels. And after all, 67% of what is collected privately is a lot better than 100% of nothing. Private collectors often succeed where state agencies fail, because government officials lack financial incentives to track down fathers who are in arrears. Therefore, state agencies should take a cue from what some mothers are doing: Hire private companies to locate and collect from recalcitrant fathers. Private collectors hunting down deadbeat fathers for state governments may evoke the notorious bounty-hunter system of the Old West, but it would be an effective response to the failure of state agencies. Privatization of state collection efforts has precedents in other kinds of debt: States have hired private companies to collect unpaid traffic fines, for example. Congress should adopt most of the President's recommendations to strengthen the government's hand in collecting child support. But the laws already on the books would be much more effective in reducing the number of children raised in poverty if state governments and more mothers hired private collectors to track down deadbeat fathers. What's with these old stories? |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Unleash the Bill Collectors on Deadbeat Dads
"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message ... "Paul Fritz" wrote in message ... Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths Authors: Sanford L. Braver, Diane O'Connell Deadbeat dads: Divorced fathers pay 90 percent of the child support they have been ordered to pay. Fully employed divorced fathers pay all that is due. In addition, they pay visitation expenses. [Depending on the extent of the research providing the result, fathers (all fathers including never married) pay 70-80 percent of what they have been ordered to pay. The low end 70 percent relies on recipient surveys that do not account for money that is paid but withheld as repayment for welfare, and possible bias. In all cases, the primary cause of non-payment is that the person ordered to pay is unable to pay.] Ha ha.. this is a joke right? Thats why there is SOOOO much owed in back child support and the amounts continue to rise. Non-payment is that the person ordered to pay is unable to pay? ha ha.. thats the best joke ive heard yet. Jumping from job to job avoiding payments, tracking across state lines to avoid payment, not sending ANYTHING at all instead of what they can, yeah thats really a good reason!!! The No-Show Dad: The rate of contact between fathers and their children following divorce shows "paternal devotion and tenacity [that] is entirely at odds with the more popular image of the runaways, absentee, or disappearing dad." Ha.. funny joke again. Im laughing at these good job finding the best jokes on the internet today. Standards of Living: Women with children are, as a group, better off financially following divorce than men. That's right, it's not the other way around. Ha.. now thats funny. Especially when after the divorce most women end up in a poverty situation and on top of that we add the non-support from daddy ....hmm Terms of Divorce: Far from being docile, easily manipulated victims of a male dominated divorce system, women have always fared well in negotiations and settlements. Men are far more likely to be the biggest losers in the process. Ha again. Hardly.. Men are just sore because they have to give up their material things when they "think" they should get everything. "Everything"? Emotional Issues of Divorce: Women are happier after divorce than men. Given the results related to the other myths, this is likely to cause the least surprise. They have the children, they are better off financially, they drive better cars, their situation is less likely to interfere with new relationships and remarriage .... Women are happier after divorce becasue they finally got smart and got rid of a pos. They dont have to put up with the mans **** anymore. Drive nicer cars?? ha ha.. thats funny. Most Single MOthers I know do NOT drive nice cars and if they do its usually because their parents help them out. better off financially? Majority live in poverty.. I guess if thats being better off financially then whoppee!!! Their situation is LESS LIKELY to interfere?? yeah thats why most single mothers are seen by other men as having baggage.. lol. Man this stuff you post is so funny. Who leaves the marriage ... and why it matters: " ... women initiate the preponderance (63 - 75%) of modern divorces ..." It matters because it vindicates the finding that men do less well then women after divorce, because the blame heaped on men for divorce should be addressed, and because the myth serves to further unlevel the playing field of domestic relations law and politics on which fathers are already disadvantaged. It matters because women are finally standing up for themselves and not putting up with mens ****. Thats why it matters!!! Poor victims Fathers.. give me a break. With all due respect, are you a lesbian? "Chris" wrote in message news:HEprb.11960$0K6.11380@fed1read06... "Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message ... Just posting articles that are relavant to the issues at in the group. You all say that deadbeats dont exsist that they are all just men trying their hardest to pay their support. These articles show otherwise. You believe everything you see in print? "Chris" wrote in message news:gykrb.10217$0K6.6349@fed1read06... "Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message ... Unleash the Bill Collectors on Deadbeat Dads By Gary S. Becker July 18, 1994 BusinessWeek More than one in five U.S. children live in poverty. This is mainly because of a spectacular growth in the number of families headed by unmarried mothers, compounded by low or nonexistent child-support payments by noncustodial fathers. Fortunately for the children, as well as the mothers, it is possible to greatly increase the number of fathers who meet their obligations. It is far too easy for fathers to dump the financial as well as the emotional burdens of raising children on mothers. More men will hesitate to father children if they know they'll have a tougher time evading the duty to support them. Children can benefit emotionally as well as materially when their fathers support them. And if more dads were forced to pay up, they might be more likely to spend time with their kids -- since they would no longer be avoiding detection. A 1993 Urban Institute study estimates that incomes of many one-parent families would rise above the poverty level if all child-support obligations were met. But the American Fathers Coalition -- a group of child-support payers -- claims the delinquency figures are inflated by mothers' failure to report the payments they receive. This coalition also believes fathers sometimes fall into arrears because child-support awards are excessive. This group makes some valid points, but it is still important to improve compliance with child-support obligations. Congress passed legislation in 1984 and 1988 requiring states to make stronger collection efforts, with the Federal government footing most of the bill. It is now easier to garnishee wages, even when fathers have moved to other states, and to jail those who refuse to pay. Computer systems allow states to keep better track of where fathers live and how much they owe. PATERNITY WARDS As part of his welfare-reform package, President Clinton recently proposed stiffening these laws by establishing national clearinghouses to track interstate cases, by denying occupational permits and driver's licenses to fathers who don't pay up (some states already have such rules), and by requiring hospitals to establish and record who the father is for every baby born. Although federal laws and state efforts have increased the numbers of fathers who pay up, statistics compiled by the Health & Human Services Dept.'s Office of Child Support Enforcement show that state agencies are collecting money in less than 19% of their child-support cases. Many fathers continue to successfully avoid detection by state governments -- in some cases by fleeing to another state. One reason for the low figure is that state collection agencies concentrate on helping mothers on welfare, including efforts to establish the identity of the fathers. States emphasize welfare cases because public spending is reduced when families receive enough child support to go off welfare. But many women not on welfare are also failing to get the support due them. Some women who were not being helped by state agencies have turned to private collectors to track down the fathers of their children. These collectors have often been quite successful: They may garnishee the wages of fathers or get local authorities to jail deadbeats until they pay up. BOUNTY HUNTERS? Private collectors usually charge a small nonrefundable fee, but their main source of revenue is a contingency payment that usually ranges from one-quarter to one-third of what they collect. This may seem like a big cut, but these fractions are not out of line with fees charged by companies collecting other kinds of debt. Yet some children's advocacy groups oppose the involvement of for-profit collection companies, because they hate to see large sums being siphoned off that should be going to the children. But mothers usually turn to private companies only after they fail to get what is due them through ordinary channels. And after all, 67% of what is collected privately is a lot better than 100% of nothing. Private collectors often succeed where state agencies fail, because government officials lack financial incentives to track down fathers who are in arrears. Therefore, state agencies should take a cue from what some mothers are doing: Hire private companies to locate and collect from recalcitrant fathers. Private collectors hunting down deadbeat fathers for state governments may evoke the notorious bounty-hunter system of the Old West, but it would be an effective response to the failure of state agencies. Privatization of state collection efforts has precedents in other kinds of debt: States have hired private companies to collect unpaid traffic fines, for example. Congress should adopt most of the President's recommendations to strengthen the government's hand in collecting child support. But the laws already on the books would be much more effective in reducing the number of children raised in poverty if state governments and more mothers hired private collectors to track down deadbeat fathers. What's with these old stories? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Unleash the Bill Collectors on Deadbeat Dads
"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message news First of all the income of the father is reported by the father NOT what the NCP "women" wants to report. In fact most states require three years of tax returns as well as recent pay stubs from each party to determine the amount of CS that should be paid. Maybe in some report they base the finding on that, but in reality there's something called imputed income and that will have you paying based on what the judge THINKS you should be making. A Judge who's gone for one interview in his life and been on easy-street ever since. For example: I could be making $7.00/hour at McD's because my $80K job vanished. The judge might feel I'm capable of making $60K but I've applied to every job that's been presented. The judge will impute the income to $60K. No matter what those tax-returns claim... the reality is the judge can be wrong or blind to the problems of the NCP. Cameron |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Unleash the Bill Collectors on Deadbeat Dads
"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message ... I'm not "flooding" any more than you cronies here that insist that you are right. Much of what you say is simply cut and pasted from other "men's rights" sights. Firstly, it's a SITE not a SIGHT. Secondly, I rarely post more than a link. I paste opinion and suggestions. Thirdly, You seem to feel that NCPs are a problem. Do you feel they all are? Are all NCPs Deadbeats? Cameron |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Unleash the Bill Collectors on Deadbeat Dads
Find the articles they are listed in most cases they are listed IN the
articles themselves. "Chris" wrote in message news:yACrb.14264$0K6.11054@fed1read06... "Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message ... No, but when I can see information that backs it up..yep. In the case of these articles, there are figures and studies that back them up. What figures from where? "Chris" wrote in message news:HEprb.11960$0K6.11380@fed1read06... "Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message ... Just posting articles that are relavant to the issues at in the group. You all say that deadbeats dont exsist that they are all just men trying their hardest to pay their support. These articles show otherwise. You believe everything you see in print? "Chris" wrote in message news:gykrb.10217$0K6.6349@fed1read06... "Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message ... Unleash the Bill Collectors on Deadbeat Dads By Gary S. Becker July 18, 1994 BusinessWeek More than one in five U.S. children live in poverty. This is mainly because of a spectacular growth in the number of families headed by unmarried mothers, compounded by low or nonexistent child-support payments by noncustodial fathers. Fortunately for the children, as well as the mothers, it is possible to greatly increase the number of fathers who meet their obligations. It is far too easy for fathers to dump the financial as well as the emotional burdens of raising children on mothers. More men will hesitate to father children if they know they'll have a tougher time evading the duty to support them. Children can benefit emotionally as well as materially when their fathers support them. And if more dads were forced to pay up, they might be more likely to spend time with their kids -- since they would no longer be avoiding detection. A 1993 Urban Institute study estimates that incomes of many one-parent families would rise above the poverty level if all child-support obligations were met. But the American Fathers Coalition -- a group of child-support payers -- claims the delinquency figures are inflated by mothers' failure to report the payments they receive. This coalition also believes fathers sometimes fall into arrears because child-support awards are excessive. This group makes some valid points, but it is still important to improve compliance with child-support obligations. Congress passed legislation in 1984 and 1988 requiring states to make stronger collection efforts, with the Federal government footing most of the bill. It is now easier to garnishee wages, even when fathers have moved to other states, and to jail those who refuse to pay. Computer systems allow states to keep better track of where fathers live and how much they owe. PATERNITY WARDS As part of his welfare-reform package, President Clinton recently proposed stiffening these laws by establishing national clearinghouses to track interstate cases, by denying occupational permits and driver's licenses to fathers who don't pay up (some states already have such rules), and by requiring hospitals to establish and record who the father is for every baby born. Although federal laws and state efforts have increased the numbers of fathers who pay up, statistics compiled by the Health & Human Services Dept.'s Office of Child Support Enforcement show that state agencies are collecting money in less than 19% of their child-support cases. Many fathers continue to successfully avoid detection by state governments -- in some cases by fleeing to another state. One reason for the low figure is that state collection agencies concentrate on helping mothers on welfare, including efforts to establish the identity of the fathers. States emphasize welfare cases because public spending is reduced when families receive enough child support to go off welfare. But many women not on welfare are also failing to get the support due them. Some women who were not being helped by state agencies have turned to private collectors to track down the fathers of their children. These collectors have often been quite successful: They may garnishee the wages of fathers or get local authorities to jail deadbeats until they pay up. BOUNTY HUNTERS? Private collectors usually charge a small nonrefundable fee, but their main source of revenue is a contingency payment that usually ranges from one-quarter to one-third of what they collect. This may seem like a big cut, but these fractions are not out of line with fees charged by companies collecting other kinds of debt. Yet some children's advocacy groups oppose the involvement of for-profit collection companies, because they hate to see large sums being siphoned off that should be going to the children. But mothers usually turn to private companies only after they fail to get what is due them through ordinary channels. And after all, 67% of what is collected privately is a lot better than 100% of nothing. Private collectors often succeed where state agencies fail, because government officials lack financial incentives to track down fathers who are in arrears. Therefore, state agencies should take a cue from what some mothers are doing: Hire private companies to locate and collect from recalcitrant fathers. Private collectors hunting down deadbeat fathers for state governments may evoke the notorious bounty-hunter system of the Old West, but it would be an effective response to the failure of state agencies. Privatization of state collection efforts has precedents in other kinds of debt: States have hired private companies to collect unpaid traffic fines, for example. Congress should adopt most of the President's recommendations to strengthen the government's hand in collecting child support. But the laws already on the books would be much more effective in reducing the number of children raised in poverty if state governments and more mothers hired private collectors to track down deadbeat fathers. What's with these old stories? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A first 'Parker Jensen' bill advances | wexwimpy | Foster Parents | 0 | February 8th 04 06:29 PM |
Deadbeat Dads | Mel Gamble | Child Support | 4 | June 24th 03 02:46 AM |