Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child support debt?

"Illiana via FamilyKB.com" u38194@uwe wrote in message
news:79acf2416d0cb@uwe...
Gini wrote:
"Paula" wrote
"Gini" wrote:

On Oct 12, 9:47 am, "Gini" wrote:
This group is for NCPs who have
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]

That's what Google provides as the description of the group.
==
Heh, I know. I was just entertaining you. Google did not create
alt.child-support (which has been around since at least 1990--long before
Google
Actually, that description has been around for years as well and its been
incorrect for years (which is very common for unchartered newsgroups such
as
acs).
Maybe someday someone will figure out how to get it corrected. I am not a
"founding member." I've only been here since 1997, but I am one of the
longest surviving members. FYI, here's a link to the first postings to
alt.child-support, "certifying" that it *is* and always has been
pertaining
to child support issues from the perspective of noncustodial parents:

http://tinyurl.com/2xp4lt

Well, if that is the case, then you could have pointed that out in a
mature
manner, instead of going all psycho about it. Since you like to be bossy
(about something you do not own), and feel you can express your views as
you
see fit, be a grown-up and extend that courtesy to others.

Perhaps if everyone extended that courtesy to others, includiong the people
from that that group that is snatching our posts, there would be fewer
problems. But being told to "stick to my topic, and only give answers *I*
consider to be positive" is way up there on the bossy scale.

"Illiana via FamilyKB.com" u38194@uwe wrote in message
news:79acfee1822e9@uwe...
teachrmama wrote:
"Illiana" u38194@uwe wrote in

[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
you
have any advice on how to collect my child support?

Do you know where the father is? Do you communicate with him? Does he
see
his child? Do you send pictures, ;etters, homemade cards from child to
father? Very often a healthy relationship with his child is the best way
to
get a father to contribute to his child's support needs.
I know where the father is, in fact, we are separated, but reside in the
same
home. He doesn't want to work, or pay his share of the rent. I felt child
support was the only way to get him motivated(which it hasn't) to find a
job.
I am not a complete bitch, but I am tired of supporting him, and I don't
have
the heart to throw him out.
As for him being able to see his child, as I said he lives in our home,
but
he doesn't show much of an interest in being a father. He has access to my
son just as much as I do, so I don't think I need to announce when our
child
does something creative. All he needs to do is come up out of the basement
and involve himself.

Oh, I see. You're an enabler--not meant as an insult. He really does not
need to get off his tush and get a job because you are enabling him to keep
being shiftless. And if Child Support Enforcement finally does get tired of
the arrearages and throw his butt in jail, then the taxpayers will pick up
the ball and support him. The best thing you could do for him (based on the
few facts you have presented here) is to throw him out and let him fend for
himself. Again, this is not an insult, but perhaps some counseling would
not be amiss for you, to help you define some boundaries for yourself,
rather than saddling yourself with his care and feeding as well as the care
and feeding of your child (which is not a burden, but does take effort).

Gini wrote:
"Illiana" u38194@uwe wrote
.................
Why do you want to argue with me when
I made this clear from the get go?
==
You don't own the ball, or the topic, hon. You're on our playground,
remember?
Just curious--have you synpathy for moronic girls who have unprotected sex
with moronic men and then bring children into the world they can take care
of or don't want to support
and then go whining all over the net about what poor victims they are?

You own as much of the "ball" or topic as I do, so watch how you try to
regulate who can post a topic, because it sounds like you don't WANT others
to post anything unless it is along you line of thought.Unfortunately for you,
what you WANT and what IS are two different things. You WANT me to not post
here, but I am and I WILL post if I please. The adult thing to do would be to
deal with it, then get over it. If you can’t, seek help then try again.
Who is childish enough to want to argue on a "playground" with somebody that
has the mind set of a 12 year old, other than yourself?
People make mistakes it's one of the things that make us all human, the
difference between you and I is that I think people shouId be held
accountable for them. Sometimes that accountability is financial, other times
it is loss. I have sympathy for any child that doesn’t have the benefit of a
two parent income, and as a human being, you shouls as well.
It is obvious that you have no regard for the children in these situations.
It makes me wonder why? How much do you or a partner have to pay an ex for
child support, and why are you SO bitter about it?
Just comply with the law and there isn’t a problem, because there are a lot
worse things out there than child support. You are never going to change your
opinion, just as I will not change mine. Why argue, and be nasty?
I will take the high road, and ignore your comments. Good day, Governess.

--
Message posted via FamilyKB.com
http://www.familykb.com/Uwe/Forums.a...nting/200710/1

"Illiana via FamilyKB.com" u38194@uwe wrote in message
news:79ad1141d5d0f@uwe...
teachrmama wrote:
It looks like there are a lot of deadbeat supporters, enablers, and
deadbeats on this usenet group. This particular thread is not for
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
to
bash custodial parents, child support orders, or the government.

I didn't bash anybody. I am simply stating the truth. Anyone who is to
difficult to track down and/or to poor to provide support is basically
ignored by the system. That is absolute fact. Years ago, NCPs were
ordered
to send their payments directly to the CP. Wage garnishment was saved for
those recalcitrant few who refused to pay. Now every court order (at
least
in my state) is done by wage garnishment. And the system claims to have
collected from all the deadbeats to the tune of however much they collect
through garnishment--even if the person would have paid anyway. I kid you
not.

My sister has a stepson who has fathered at leat 5 children--he has never
had a CS judgement against him, becuase he does not work--the women he
sleeps with support him. The system doesn't bother with him because it
would be a waste of time and money--a d*mn shame, because all the mothers
live on public moneys.

I am not trying to be negative, but the system is unfair to many NCPs, but
it is also unfair to many CPs. That's just the way it is.

I never stated that the system is fair. In the case of the stepson, would
he
not be the type of non custodial parent that the system was designed to
enforce?

Yes, it is. But you can't get blood from a turnip, and there is simply no
money to be had from these people--and it looks terrible on the books to see
that $$XXX was spent on enforcement and $xx was collected. It looks really
great on the books that $X was spent on enforcement, and $$XXXXX was
collected--even if it didn't need to be collected because it sould have been
pwid anyway.

If he is happy living on P.A and not taking care of his kids, is
that any better?

He's not living on PA--the babies' moms are--and he lives with them and/or
with other women who will take care of him.

I see a few responders that think child support is welfare, but it is not.

I haven't seen anyone here say that CS is welfare. Who said that--I must
have missed that post.

The step son you refer to, his kids, and mothers are on state aid, which
is
taking from all of us that work. If there was a child support order, true
the
mothers would still get state aid, but the CSE would try to collect the
money
from HIM instead of the taxpayers.

But that's my point--they don't even try, because there is nothing to get
from him.

Are men that father multiple children and not support them just as bad as
women who refuse to work and collect welfare? It seems that the cause is
the
inability for both parents to take responsibility, and the result is
welfare.

Anyone who brings multiple children into the world with no intention of
supporting them is outrageous--man or woman.

"Illiana via FamilyKB.com" u38194@uwe wrote in message
news:79ad220054a79@uwe...
DB wrote:
"Paula" wrote in

Show me one father that doesn't want involvement with their child?

[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]

And the difference in your definitions are?

A Father wantsto be with his children, he doesn't need laws to enforce
this!!!!!!
If that is the case, then why would it even be an issue to pay
child-support.
If the Non custodial parent (because there are some women that don't
support
their children) is willing to support their children that is fine, but I
think a lot of custodial parents want a court order for reassurance that
that
circumstance doesn't change.
When people get angry at each other, it is possible that a non custodial
would withhold support for spite, just as a custodial parent may withhold
access to the child.
I personally think that when two people split up they should get an order
of
support and a court order for visitation right away, because you never
know
how another person may act in an attempt to get at another.

Here is where your innocence is showing--child support orders are
enforced--visitation orders are not. NCPs go to jail for not paying
support. CPs who interfere with visitation are rarely dealt with. My
personal opinion is that 50/50 joint custody should be the default order,
and should only be deviated from for a major reason--not "I don't like him
any more."

Bob Whiteside wrote:
..................................

[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
alt.child-support and post directly via usenet/Google, they
are legally free to do so.

I sent the following message to the FamilyKB.com webmaster -

I am writing to register a complaint about your web site violating its
published privacy policy. Your privacy policy states in part:

"We do not rent, sell or share your personally identifying information to
other companies or individuals, unless we have your consent, are required by
law, or have a good faith belief that access, preservation or disclosure of
such information is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or
safety of FamilyKB.com or its users."

I have never signed up for your web site. Yet you are sharing personally
identifying information about me on your web site without my consent. I
demand you remove all messages identifying me personally that you have
captured from other sources and republish on your web site and respect my
privacy by not sharing my postings and personal information.

Your personal information is not shared, just your screen name, and it is not
MY web site. As I stated before, you saw the topic, you did not have to read
it, and you were not forced to post a response, let alone after knowing from
replies from posters, prior to your post, that it was a cross post.
I am sure a judge would agree that once you opened the post, it can be
concluded that you did read the posts, and replies, and that it was made
clear before you posted by direct comment from one person to another that
this was a cross post to the group you frequent.
Since you were not under any direst to post a comment, the responsibility
lies with you and your actions.
There is also the sites disclaimer which cover them.

--
Message posted via http://www.familykb.com

teachrmama wrote:
It looks like there are a lot of deadbeat supporters, enablers, and
deadbeats on this usenet group. This particular thread is not for
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
I am not trying to be negative, but the system is unfair to many NCPs, but
it is also unfair to many CPs. That's just the way it is.

I never stated that the system is fair. In the case of the stepson, would
he
not be the type of non custodial parent that the system was designed to
enforce?

Yes, it is. But you can't get blood from a turnip, and there is simply no
money to be had from these people--and it looks terrible on the books to see
that $$XXX was spent on enforcement and $xx was collected. It looks really
great on the books that $X was spent on enforcement, and $$XXXXX was
collected--even if it didn't need to be collected because it sould have been
pwid anyway.

If he is happy living on P.A and not taking care of his kids, is
that any better?

He's not living on PA--the babies' moms are--and he lives with them and/or
with other women who will take care of him.

I see a few responders that think child support is welfare, but it is not.

I haven't seen anyone here say that CS is welfare. Who said that--I must
have missed that post.

The step son you refer to, his kids, and mothers are on state aid, which
is
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
money
from HIM instead of the taxpayers.

But that's my point--they don't even try, because there is nothing to get
from him.

Are men that father multiple children and not support them just as bad as
women who refuse to work and collect welfare? It seems that the cause is
the
inability for both parents to take responsibility, and the result is
welfare.

Anyone who brings multiple children into the world with no intention of
supporting them is outrageous--man or woman.
Some crazy guy refered to child support as relying on the government, to me
that means welfare.
If the stepson is living with the mothers that get P.A, and they are
supporting him, then he too is living on P.A

--
Message posted via FamilyKB.com
http://www.familykb.com/Uwe/Forums.a...nting/200710/1

"Illiana via FamilyKB.com" u38194@uwe wrote in message
news:79ad4e3ac0a0e@uwe...
Gini wrote:
"Illiana" u38194@uwe wrote
.................
Why do you want to argue with me when
I made this clear from the get go?
==
You don't own the ball, or the topic, hon. You're on our playground,
remember?
Just curious--have you synpathy for moronic girls who have unprotected sex
with moronic men and then bring children into the world they can take care
of or don't want to support
and then go whining all over the net about what poor victims they are?

You own as much of the "ball" or topic as I do, so watch how you try to
regulate who can post a topic, because it sounds like you don't WANT
others
to post anything unless it is along you line of thought.Unfortunately for
you,
what you WANT and what IS are two different things. You WANT me to not
post
here, but I am and I WILL post if I please. The adult thing to do would be
to
deal with it, then get over it. If you can't, seek help then try again.
Who is childish enough to want to argue on a "playground" with somebody
that
has the mind set of a 12 year old, other than yourself?
People make mistakes it's one of the things that make us all human, the
difference between you and I is that I think people shouId be held
accountable for them. Sometimes that accountability is financial, other
times
it is loss. I have sympathy for any child that doesn't have the benefit of
a
two parent income, and as a human being, you should as well.

Unfortunately, the children are not really the issue--they are just held up
to be the issue. If children and their right to be supported by two parent
incomes were really the issue, then you would see stay-at-home moms arrested
all over the country for not providing an income for their child. You would
also see custodial parents who do not work being arrested for not providing
support. But the only ones who are dealt with harshly are NCPs. And the
majority of the time the ones who are penalized are the ones who really
*can't* pay the full amount due to exigent circumstances. But NCP and
"deadbeat dad" have become almost synonymous in the public eye. (I could
tell you horror stories on this one)

It is obvious that you have no regard for the children in these
situations.
It makes me wonder why? How much do you or a partner have to pay an ex for
child support, and why are you SO bitter about it?

You are responding to a person who has never had a CS order, and who shared
responsibility for her children with her ex without ever needing any sort of
government intervention. Why would people not want to hear advice from
someone who accomplished that?

Just comply with the law and there isn't a problem, because there are a
lot
worse things out there than child support. You are never going to change
your
opinion, just as I will not change mine. Why argue, and be nasty?
I will take the high road, and ignore your comments. Good day, Governess.

Are you implying that she has broken the law? There are a number of people
posting here now that seem to interpret the advice to "get a job and/or an
education and become independent of the need for someone else to help
support you" as being the same as "you don't deserve child support." Those
are 2 very different things.

"Illiana via FamilyKB.com" u38194@uwe wrote in message
news:79ad72d188877@uwe...
teachrmama wrote:
It looks like there are a lot of deadbeat supporters, enablers, and
deadbeats on this usenet group. This particular thread is not for
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
I am not trying to be negative, but the system is unfair to many NCPs,
but
it is also unfair to many CPs. That's just the way it is.

I never stated that the system is fair. In the case of the stepson,
would
he
not be the type of non custodial parent that the system was designed to
enforce?

Yes, it is. But you can't get blood from a turnip, and there is simply no
money to be had from these people--and it looks terrible on the books to
see
that $$XXX was spent on enforcement and $xx was collected. It looks
really
great on the books that $X was spent on enforcement, and $$XXXXX was
collected--even if it didn't need to be collected because it sould have
been
pwid anyway.

If he is happy living on P.A and not taking care of his kids, is
that any better?

He's not living on PA--the babies' moms are--and he lives with them and/or
with other women who will take care of him.

I see a few responders that think child support is welfare, but it is
not.

I haven't seen anyone here say that CS is welfare. Who said that--I must
have missed that post.

The step son you refer to, his kids, and mothers are on state aid, which
is
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
money
from HIM instead of the taxpayers.

But that's my point--they don't even try, because there is nothing to get
from him.

Are men that father multiple children and not support them just as bad
as
women who refuse to work and collect welfare? It seems that the cause is
the
inability for both parents to take responsibility, and the result is
welfare.

Anyone who brings multiple children into the world with no intention of
supporting them is outrageous--man or woman.

Some crazy guy refered to child support as relying on the government, to
me
that means welfare.

Child Support Enforcement is a government agency. So those who rely on
child support via court order rely on the government to provide for them by
collecting the money and sending it to them.

If the stepson is living with the mothers that get P.A, and they are
supporting him, then he too is living on P.A

He's perfectly content doing that, and has a number of women who are happy
to share with him.

"Illiana via FamilyKB.com" u38194@uwe wrote in message
news:79acd913e32fe@uwe...
Shadow36 wrote:
It looks like there are a lot of deadbeat supporters, enablers, and
deadbeats on this usenet group. This particular thread is not for
[quoted text clipped - 43 lines]
false.
Move along now; go on to where your rude comments will be appreciated.

Here's a useful comment for you.. Find someone who knows about usenet and
newsgroups, and have them go to alt.child-support. There you will find all
the useless drivel thats been posted by you and your *ahem* co-horts. Then
you can ask your little family web sire why they are cross posting to
here.

So you are implying that all custodial parents are in cahoots? It may just
be
me, but you sound paranoid.


I never said anything of the sort. Do you have a comprehension problem? Your
little web site that you post on Is cross posting to the usenet group
alt.child-support, and It should not be. Is that simple enough for you? Do
you understand now?