Moms Scrimp As States Take Child Support

  1. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/01/us/01child.html?_r=1&ex=1354251600&en=998915fd20e432d6&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin


    This kind of blows me away....I really didn't know that this is what happens when the father pays his money to the state. WOW!

    How does the government expect single, low income mothers to ever be self-sufficient? Sure, I get it, we need to pay back the government for the welfare benefits...but at the expense of the child now? Why not make it a totally separate order due to two entities? Child support where 100% goes to the mothers, and then let welfare deal with collecting for the restitution/payback of benefits?
    When they calculate the amount the father has to pay in child support that should be totally separate from the payback he owes welfare.
     
  2. o no that's not right.
     
  3. That's why you should go through a private lawyer, and not the state, to get child support enfoced by the non-custodial parent.
     
  4. That doesn't seems fair, to use child support for revenue collection.
     
  5. *enforced
     
  6. That's really really terrible.
     
  7. Oh, yeah, this has been going on for years and years.

    When I left my son's sperm donor, I had to temporarily go on welfare while I found a job, set up a new home, etc. My ex was ordered to pay 300.00 a month CS to the State, but I only got 50.00. And that amount was deducted from the monthly check. Makes you wonder just where all your taxes, his CS, etc, really goes. Well, I have a good idea.... but that's another forum.
     

  8. In some states, that's not an option. It depends on where you live. Some allow you to choose and in some, the state collects all of it on a mandatory basis.

    Also the states are taking this money to pay back welfare benefits the women may be receiving. This was part of the massive welfare reforms that were instituted back in the early 90s. Taxpayers were screaming that they should not be supporting other people's children and this is the result.
     
  9. Roo is correct, it's not an option, at least not in California. You must report any and ALL income, and it's deducted from whatever the State allows the person on Aid, including any monies from little things, like a baby-sitting stint you may have done, cash from turning in recycled cans, etc. They will also count against you any gifts of room and board, food, etc. You are allowed nothing of real value, not even a car over the value of 2,000, or jewelry, real goods, etc.

    Literally, you have to be completely down and out before you can get help, then they keep taking away anything you have or get to keep you down.

    It's humiliating.
     
  10. Even if you have the option to not go through the state, I think many people simply cannot afford the cost of a private lawyer.

    Makes me really glad my father paid child support directly to my mother in cash.
     
  11. My DH also just paid directly to the mother....I guess since he always paid on time there was never a reason to have it where he paid the Child Support Division. Thankfully!
     
  12. if i can be at any help ?
     
  13. Wow, that's so unfortunate. I live in GA, and all I know is that when my BF divorced his ex-wife, they had their child support handled through their divorce lawyers. She got maybe four times as much as the state would have awarded her.

    That's unfortunate too...I am not aware if Georgia has any parts of these policies, as I've never had a kid and needed child support.

    When my BF divorced his ex-wife, he had to pay fees for her lawyer. I'm not sure if it's because he initiated the divorce proceedings or not. But that's a marriage. I can see how it would be different if the father had never married the mother, and it wasn't a case of a legal divorce. Then in that case, I am quite sure the mother would be on her own. I don't want kids, but knowing that, I damn sure wouldn't have one by a man who hasn't married me even if I did want to become a mother. For reasons just like that.