50/50 is terrible for kids! Why does this nonsense persist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We do 50-50 and we as parents shuffle Around

This is the only way to do it. The parents who make the decision to break up the family should be the ones doing the shuffling around.

I think only married people advocate for this. I am married, but if I ever got divorced, no way would I agree to this. The best part of being divorced would be not having to deal with your ex’s stuff and their mess - taking turns in the same house means that there’s still a million reasons to fight, with no clean break. It’s the worst of both worlds; all the hassles of living together with none of the benefits. If you can make this work; you should just stay married.

It's called family nesting and I know a family who have been doing this for 10 years. Kids stay in the family home and the parents go back and forth between an apartment. I get why it wouldn't work for everyone, but it was important to them both, that the divorce caused as little distraction for the kids as possible.

Cost and often the parents don't cooperate. So, what happens when Mom has an affair and moves in with the AP? Dad should have to share a home with the AP? What if that AP has kids? Do they go to the house for visits or to live on Mom's time? Or, the reverse with Dad?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:50/50 has been an absolute godsend for a couple of women of my acquaintance who finally have the time to pursue career, meaningful and healthy relationships, and their own health and well being.

Unfortunately the instances where a father fights for 50/50 to lower child support and then constantly flakes should be dealt with more harshly by the courts and penalized per diem in child support payments.

Your constant Dad bashing is pathetic. Many moms fight for full custody to get maximum child support and then don't spend it on the kids. It goes both ways. Its pathetic that the courts have zero accountability for child support and keep Dad's out of kids' lives as the other parent often manipulates the kids and situation for their best interests.

It’s not Dad bashing. I have nothing but respect for the men who seek 50/50 and actually take 50% without excuses or constant flakiness.

The ones that realize their weekend includes Super Bowl Sunday and expect to be able to either switch or drop the kids back with mom by 2pm tomorrow? Nothing but contempt.

Yes you are. Same post every time.

Do you think there should be consequences for men who don’t take their 50% if that’s what they sought in court?

Yes, there are consequences, they lose custody. However, there are no consequences if the Mom's don't spend the child support on the kids.

If she’s buying food and clothes and providing a place to sleep, she’s spending child support on the kids. Or are you claiming it’s common for people to starve their kids, not give the clothes, and make them sleep outside?

Or, what if her boyfriend pays the rent and the kids are going without clothes and they are on food stamps....

Going without clothes meaning the kids are barefoot and naked or meaning in your omniscience you don’t think their clothes justify the child support? Even if someone else pays rent, internet, heat and electricity aren’t free. Food stamp and other benefit adjudications take child support into account so obviously she’s not getting very much if she still qualifies.

Again, if they aren't paying the rent and utilities that should not be taken into child support calculations as you are saying that is what child support is for. The kids often went without proper clothing and shoes too small. And, no, food stamps and other benefits did not take into consideration the child support as if they did she wouldn't have qualified. More than likely she lied about the child support as no way she'd get food stamps and medical otherwise, especially dad had the kids on full medical coverage.

Surprise, some Mom's lie and don't use the money appropriately.

So, I call troll here-they absolutely check this when a parent applies for aid. Child support orders are court records. If this Mom 'lied' it must have been decades ago before computers were in wide use. Also, one can easily report suspected food stamp fraud. In fact, it's as easy as posting on DCUM

I really think there is one, or a few, posters in this thread whose last interactions with the family court system was in 1985 or so.

They can check, but they don't check for private custody cases, just the ones that go through the Office of Child Support. There are two different systems. No, you don't report someone for food stamp fraud as that impacts the child. The systems for the private child support cases are not linked as the garnishment gets sent from the employer or the NCP sends a check directly.

This...is word salad.

As I said before-someone is posting from decades past.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:50/50 has been an absolute godsend for a couple of women of my acquaintance who finally have the time to pursue career, meaningful and healthy relationships, and their own health and well being.

Unfortunately the instances where a father fights for 50/50 to lower child support and then constantly flakes should be dealt with more harshly by the courts and penalized per diem in child support payments.

Your constant Dad bashing is pathetic. Many moms fight for full custody to get maximum child support and then don't spend it on the kids. It goes both ways. Its pathetic that the courts have zero accountability for child support and keep Dad's out of kids' lives as the other parent often manipulates the kids and situation for their best interests.

It’s not Dad bashing. I have nothing but respect for the men who seek 50/50 and actually take 50% without excuses or constant flakiness.

The ones that realize their weekend includes Super Bowl Sunday and expect to be able to either switch or drop the kids back with mom by 2pm tomorrow? Nothing but contempt.

Yes you are. Same post every time.

Do you think there should be consequences for men who don’t take their 50% if that’s what they sought in court?

Yes, there are consequences, they lose custody. However, there are no consequences if the Mom's don't spend the child support on the kids.

If she’s buying food and clothes and providing a place to sleep, she’s spending child support on the kids. Or are you claiming it’s common for people to starve their kids, not give the clothes, and make them sleep outside?

Or, what if her boyfriend pays the rent and the kids are going without clothes and they are on food stamps....

Going without clothes meaning the kids are barefoot and naked or meaning in your omniscience you don’t think their clothes justify the child support? Even if someone else pays rent, internet, heat and electricity aren’t free. Food stamp and other benefit adjudications take child support into account so obviously she’s not getting very much if she still qualifies.

Again, if they aren't paying the rent and utilities that should not be taken into child support calculations as you are saying that is what child support is for. The kids often went without proper clothing and shoes too small. And, no, food stamps and other benefits did not take into consideration the child support as if they did she wouldn't have qualified. More than likely she lied about the child support as no way she'd get food stamps and medical otherwise, especially dad had the kids on full medical coverage.

Surprise, some Mom's lie and don't use the money appropriately.

So, I call troll here-they absolutely check this when a parent applies for aid. Child support orders are court records. If this Mom 'lied' it must have been decades ago before computers were in wide use. Also, one can easily report suspected food stamp fraud. In fact, it's as easy as posting on DCUM

I really think there is one, or a few, posters in this thread whose last interactions with the family court system was in 1985 or so.

They can check, but they don't check for private custody cases, just the ones that go through the Office of Child Support. There are two different systems. No, you don't report someone for food stamp fraud as that impacts the child. The systems for the private child support cases are not linked as the garnishment gets sent from the employer or the NCP sends a check directly.

This...is word salad.

As I said before-someone is posting from decades past.

Yo clearly don’t get the system. There are two ways through the court to get child support. It’s only tracked if you go through the office of child support, which is always a good idea and far better for ncps as then they don’t have to deal with the drama.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you think it’s better for a kid to have nothing more than a trivial relationship with one parent?

Better than having trivial lives with no real home.

Nope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you think it’s better for a kid to have nothing more than a trivial relationship with one parent?

Better than having trivial lives with no real home.

Why wouldn’t they have 2 real homes?
My parents were divorced when I was a kid and we spent every other weekend with dad. Maybe it would have been the case anyway, but we were never close, he always felt like more like an uncle figure, and I didn’t know my father’s relatives very well. I think keeping the bond with both parents is so important, and 50-50 is probably the easiest way to achieve that. But if you don’t like it, why don’t you give up much of your parenting time so that your kids’ primary residence, their “real home” is with your ex?

Op here. I am not divorced. I see this with selfish parents around me. My kids are grown and grew up with two parents.

Then you should work on getting a life and minding your own business.

And no, I’m not divorced, so don’t bother being predictable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does the concept of compulsory visitations persist? Why can't kids decide when and if they do visitations for them self's ? That's the only right way to do it.

Because kids will often side with one parent to please them. It’s also easy to scream abuse with no evidence.

If one parent loses their parental visits, they should not have to pay child support. If one parent wants to be the only parent they should do so and provide everything. It’s one thing I’d there is documented abuse but often it’s done out of spite. Kids deserve both parents.

This is true, but they shouldn't be FORCED to see a parent if doing so requires them to do alot of traveling or to spend any significant amount of time away from home, visitations also shouldn't be able to interfere with the Childs social life.

DISAGREE TOTALLY ON THIS>

Disagree all you want but this kind of situation destroyed any chance at a relationship between me and my father, He kept trying to force visitations when he knew the long distance and time spent away from my friends was a problem for me, I ended up refusing any contact at all with him because of it.

So you’re projecting your own personal childhood issues and trying and failing to spin it into a blanket absolutist proclamation.

Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does the concept of compulsory visitations persist? Why can't kids decide when and if they do visitations for them self's ? That's the only right way to do it.

Because kids will often side with one parent to please them. It’s also easy to scream abuse with no evidence.

If one parent loses their parental visits, they should not have to pay child support. If one parent wants to be the only parent they should do so and provide everything. It’s one thing I’d there is documented abuse but often it’s done out of spite. Kids deserve both parents.

This is true, but they shouldn't be FORCED to see a parent if doing so requires them to do alot of traveling or to spend any significant amount of time away from home, visitations also shouldn't be able to interfere with the Childs social life.

DISAGREE TOTALLY ON THIS>

Disagree all you want but this kind of situation destroyed any chance at a relationship between me and my father, He kept trying to force visitations when he knew the long distance and time spent away from my friends was a problem for me, I ended up refusing any contact at all with him because of it.

Your social life shouldn't have trumped your relationship with your dad. I am sorry for your Dad. I am glad he kept trying.

I would say it was the mom and dad's decision to divorce that trumped the relationship with dad, not the child's natural desire to maintain friendships outside the home.

You “would say” that, but you’d be wrong. Shrug.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The pendulum has swung way too far. 50/50 makes kids into chattel who have to shuffle their lives between multiple homes.

Why do judges do this to kids? Does ANY kid like this arrangement?

So is divorce

Aww, you thought you were being so smart and pithy when you typed this. Bless your heart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP what is the alternative?

Kids live in the SFH and do not move. Parent move in and out every 2 weeks. Parents can rent a single room condo to live there when they are not living with the kids.

Your one size fits-all plan that you think is so wonderful, doesn't fit all families. My own kids have stated that they want to see their parents more often than that, and are thriving on a 2255 schedule.

Meh! They are doing alright. These poor bastards have divorced parents. How can they be "thriving"?

Oh, grow up. Seriously. Grow up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The kids should get to stay in the primary home, the home they grew up in. I agree with OP that 50/50 sucks for kids. All of you that do it can convince yourself your kids are fine with it, but they’re not. They don’t have options though so they have to go along with it.

This should be mandatory.

Are you a 5 year old?

Nope, just someone who had to deal with a selfish farther who seemed to enjoy forcing me to travel all the time.

Stop spewing your personal drama all over the thread. Get therapy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:50/50 has been an absolute godsend for a couple of women of my acquaintance who finally have the time to pursue career, meaningful and healthy relationships, and their own health and well being.

Unfortunately the instances where a father fights for 50/50 to lower child support and then constantly flakes should be dealt with more harshly by the courts and penalized per diem in child support payments.

Your constant Dad bashing is pathetic. Many moms fight for full custody to get maximum child support and then don't spend it on the kids. It goes both ways. Its pathetic that the courts have zero accountability for child support and keep Dad's out of kids' lives as the other parent often manipulates the kids and situation for their best interests.

It’s not Dad bashing. I have nothing but respect for the men who seek 50/50 and actually take 50% without excuses or constant flakiness.

The ones that realize their weekend includes Super Bowl Sunday and expect to be able to either switch or drop the kids back with mom by 2pm tomorrow? Nothing but contempt.

Yes you are. Same post every time.

Do you think there should be consequences for men who don’t take their 50% if that’s what they sought in court?

Yes, there are consequences, they lose custody. However, there are no consequences if the Mom's don't spend the child support on the kids.

If she’s buying food and clothes and providing a place to sleep, she’s spending child support on the kids. Or are you claiming it’s common for people to starve their kids, not give the clothes, and make them sleep outside?

Or, what if her boyfriend pays the rent and the kids are going without clothes and they are on food stamps....

Going without clothes meaning the kids are barefoot and naked or meaning in your omniscience you don’t think their clothes justify the child support? Even if someone else pays rent, internet, heat and electricity aren’t free. Food stamp and other benefit adjudications take child support into account so obviously she’s not getting very much if she still qualifies.

Again, if they aren't paying the rent and utilities that should not be taken into child support calculations as you are saying that is what child support is for. The kids often went without proper clothing and shoes too small. And, no, food stamps and other benefits did not take into consideration the child support as if they did she wouldn't have qualified. More than likely she lied about the child support as no way she'd get food stamps and medical otherwise, especially dad had the kids on full medical coverage.

Surprise, some Mom's lie and don't use the money appropriately.

So, I call troll here-they absolutely check this when a parent applies for aid. Child support orders are court records. If this Mom 'lied' it must have been decades ago before computers were in wide use. Also, one can easily report suspected food stamp fraud. In fact, it's as easy as posting on DCUM

I really think there is one, or a few, posters in this thread whose last interactions with the family court system was in 1985 or so.

They can check, but they don't check for private custody cases, just the ones that go through the Office of Child Support. There are two different systems. No, you don't report someone for food stamp fraud as that impacts the child. The systems for the private child support cases are not linked as the garnishment gets sent from the employer or the NCP sends a check directly.

This...is word salad.

As I said before-someone is posting from decades past.

Yo clearly don’t get the system. There are two ways through the court to get child support. It’s only tracked if you go through the office of child support, which is always a good idea and far better for ncps as then they don’t have to deal with the drama.

I do, in fact, get it. As far as 'ncps', I assume you are referring to one of the co parents? That's what they are called.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:50/50 has been an absolute godsend for a couple of women of my acquaintance who finally have the time to pursue career, meaningful and healthy relationships, and their own health and well being.

Unfortunately the instances where a father fights for 50/50 to lower child support and then constantly flakes should be dealt with more harshly by the courts and penalized per diem in child support payments.

Your constant Dad bashing is pathetic. Many moms fight for full custody to get maximum child support and then don't spend it on the kids. It goes both ways. Its pathetic that the courts have zero accountability for child support and keep Dad's out of kids' lives as the other parent often manipulates the kids and situation for their best interests.

It’s not Dad bashing. I have nothing but respect for the men who seek 50/50 and actually take 50% without excuses or constant flakiness.

The ones that realize their weekend includes Super Bowl Sunday and expect to be able to either switch or drop the kids back with mom by 2pm tomorrow? Nothing but contempt.

Yes you are. Same post every time.

Do you think there should be consequences for men who don’t take their 50% if that’s what they sought in court?

Yes, there are consequences, they lose custody. However, there are no consequences if the Mom's don't spend the child support on the kids.

If she’s buying food and clothes and providing a place to sleep, she’s spending child support on the kids. Or are you claiming it’s common for people to starve their kids, not give the clothes, and make them sleep outside?

Or, what if her boyfriend pays the rent and the kids are going without clothes and they are on food stamps....

Going without clothes meaning the kids are barefoot and naked or meaning in your omniscience you don’t think their clothes justify the child support? Even if someone else pays rent, internet, heat and electricity aren’t free. Food stamp and other benefit adjudications take child support into account so obviously she’s not getting very much if she still qualifies.

Again, if they aren't paying the rent and utilities that should not be taken into child support calculations as you are saying that is what child support is for. The kids often went without proper clothing and shoes too small. And, no, food stamps and other benefits did not take into consideration the child support as if they did she wouldn't have qualified. More than likely she lied about the child support as no way she'd get food stamps and medical otherwise, especially dad had the kids on full medical coverage.

Surprise, some Mom's lie and don't use the money appropriately.

So, I call troll here-they absolutely check this when a parent applies for aid. Child support orders are court records. If this Mom 'lied' it must have been decades ago before computers were in wide use. Also, one can easily report suspected food stamp fraud. In fact, it's as easy as posting on DCUM

I really think there is one, or a few, posters in this thread whose last interactions with the family court system was in 1985 or so.

They can check, but they don't check for private custody cases, just the ones that go through the Office of Child Support. There are two different systems. No, you don't report someone for food stamp fraud as that impacts the child. The systems for the private child support cases are not linked as the garnishment gets sent from the employer or the NCP sends a check directly.

This...is word salad.

As I said before-someone is posting from decades past.

Yo clearly don’t get the system. There are two ways through the court to get child support. It’s only tracked if you go through the office of child support, which is always a good idea and far better for ncps as then they don’t have to deal with the drama.

Luckily for you, it seems that you’re the one who doesn’t get the system for applying for food stamps/Medicaid. You have to disclose income from child support. If you are not receiving child support you have to list the father and the state will come after him for child support before they will give the mother food stamps. So no, some poor suffering non-custodial dad isn’t just nobly not reporting his children’s to the state for fraud, they would be coming after him for the money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The kids should get to stay in the primary home, the home they grew up in. I agree with OP that 50/50 sucks for kids. All of you that do it can convince yourself your kids are fine with it, but they’re not. They don’t have options though so they have to go along with it.

This should be mandatory.

Are you a 5 year old?

Nope, just someone who had to deal with a selfish farther who seemed to enjoy forcing me to travel all the time.

Stop spewing your personal drama all over the thread. Get therapy.

I do it for a reason and i will never stop, My hope is that parents considering divorce will see the kind of psychological damage it can cause and be more considerate of their children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:50/50 has been an absolute godsend for a couple of women of my acquaintance who finally have the time to pursue career, meaningful and healthy relationships, and their own health and well being.

Unfortunately the instances where a father fights for 50/50 to lower child support and then constantly flakes should be dealt with more harshly by the courts and penalized per diem in child support payments.

Your constant Dad bashing is pathetic. Many moms fight for full custody to get maximum child support and then don't spend it on the kids. It goes both ways. Its pathetic that the courts have zero accountability for child support and keep Dad's out of kids' lives as the other parent often manipulates the kids and situation for their best interests.

It’s not Dad bashing. I have nothing but respect for the men who seek 50/50 and actually take 50% without excuses or constant flakiness.

The ones that realize their weekend includes Super Bowl Sunday and expect to be able to either switch or drop the kids back with mom by 2pm tomorrow? Nothing but contempt.

Yes you are. Same post every time.

Do you think there should be consequences for men who don’t take their 50% if that’s what they sought in court?

Yes, there are consequences, they lose custody. However, there are no consequences if the Mom's don't spend the child support on the kids.

If she’s buying food and clothes and providing a place to sleep, she’s spending child support on the kids. Or are you claiming it’s common for people to starve their kids, not give the clothes, and make them sleep outside?

Or, what if her boyfriend pays the rent and the kids are going without clothes and they are on food stamps....

Going without clothes meaning the kids are barefoot and naked or meaning in your omniscience you don’t think their clothes justify the child support? Even if someone else pays rent, internet, heat and electricity aren’t free. Food stamp and other benefit adjudications take child support into account so obviously she’s not getting very much if she still qualifies.

Again, if they aren't paying the rent and utilities that should not be taken into child support calculations as you are saying that is what child support is for. The kids often went without proper clothing and shoes too small. And, no, food stamps and other benefits did not take into consideration the child support as if they did she wouldn't have qualified. More than likely she lied about the child support as no way she'd get food stamps and medical otherwise, especially dad had the kids on full medical coverage.

Surprise, some Mom's lie and don't use the money appropriately.

So, I call troll here-they absolutely check this when a parent applies for aid. Child support orders are court records. If this Mom 'lied' it must have been decades ago before computers were in wide use. Also, one can easily report suspected food stamp fraud. In fact, it's as easy as posting on DCUM

I really think there is one, or a few, posters in this thread whose last interactions with the family court system was in 1985 or so.

+1

If the dad had the information that she lied to receive benefits, he would have reported it.

And to be clear, a mother of two in Maryland only qualifies for food stamps if her total income is less than $30,000 annually. So if some dad is paying so little in child support that her income is under $30,000 it’s entirely possible she would struggle to get shoes for her kids.

If Dad is paying $1K-1500K, which is pretty common, she'd not have to earn very much to get $30K. In this situation, Mom wasn't paying the rent, her boyfriend/AP was. And, that money should have been spent on the kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:50/50 has been an absolute godsend for a couple of women of my acquaintance who finally have the time to pursue career, meaningful and healthy relationships, and their own health and well being.

Unfortunately the instances where a father fights for 50/50 to lower child support and then constantly flakes should be dealt with more harshly by the courts and penalized per diem in child support payments.

Your constant Dad bashing is pathetic. Many moms fight for full custody to get maximum child support and then don't spend it on the kids. It goes both ways. Its pathetic that the courts have zero accountability for child support and keep Dad's out of kids' lives as the other parent often manipulates the kids and situation for their best interests.

It’s not Dad bashing. I have nothing but respect for the men who seek 50/50 and actually take 50% without excuses or constant flakiness.

The ones that realize their weekend includes Super Bowl Sunday and expect to be able to either switch or drop the kids back with mom by 2pm tomorrow? Nothing but contempt.

Yes you are. Same post every time.

Do you think there should be consequences for men who don’t take their 50% if that’s what they sought in court?

Yes, there are consequences, they lose custody. However, there are no consequences if the Mom's don't spend the child support on the kids.

If she’s buying food and clothes and providing a place to sleep, she’s spending child support on the kids. Or are you claiming it’s common for people to starve their kids, not give the clothes, and make them sleep outside?

Or, what if her boyfriend pays the rent and the kids are going without clothes and they are on food stamps....

Going without clothes meaning the kids are barefoot and naked or meaning in your omniscience you don’t think their clothes justify the child support? Even if someone else pays rent, internet, heat and electricity aren’t free. Food stamp and other benefit adjudications take child support into account so obviously she’s not getting very much if she still qualifies.

Again, if they aren't paying the rent and utilities that should not be taken into child support calculations as you are saying that is what child support is for. The kids often went without proper clothing and shoes too small. And, no, food stamps and other benefits did not take into consideration the child support as if they did she wouldn't have qualified. More than likely she lied about the child support as no way she'd get food stamps and medical otherwise, especially dad had the kids on full medical coverage.

Surprise, some Mom's lie and don't use the money appropriately.

So, I call troll here-they absolutely check this when a parent applies for aid. Child support orders are court records. If this Mom 'lied' it must have been decades ago before computers were in wide use. Also, one can easily report suspected food stamp fraud. In fact, it's as easy as posting on DCUM

I really think there is one, or a few, posters in this thread whose last interactions with the family court system was in 1985 or so.

Court records are not accessible to anyone and public benefits workers only have access to some data bases so they'd pull from the office of child support but not from those that are court orders via a court hearing. You clearly don't have any clue. And, most of those data bases are 20-30 years old.