Given the number of deadbeat dads, why don't you get wages garnished from the beginning?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that wages should only be garnished if the parent required to pay child support has shown an inability/unwillingness to pay on time/at all.

Not all dads are deadbeats...whether they are with their child(ren)'s mother or not. If mothers are going to be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to caring for the kids (until they prove otherwise) why does this not extend to dads?

My husband has paid both ways - mailing a check monthly and garnishment. We preferred garnishment so she couldn't demand we send the money early or give us a hard time about it. As long as it was taken out of my husband's paycheck, it wasn't our problem. The big issue for her was the garnishment way was always a week or two late and there were all kinds of other issues. She would call us to take care of it and we'd refer her back to the child support office as she set up the garnishment without us knowing (and took a double payment one month because she didn't tell us nor did they). It can be done as long as there is a court order. She was much better off with direct pay due to it coming late but we loved the garnishment as it took away one thing she could harass us about.

I think they should have accountability of how the child support is used for months over $800 per child.

Seriously? $800 doesn't even pay for 1/2 my child's share of a roof over her head. You are lame if you think a custodial parent is somehow chiseling you because you have to pay over $800 a month.

Your child portion should not be 1/2. They are not roommates. They are your child. The difference should be how much between a 1-2/3 bedroom, not 1/2 the cost of the apartment or house as you'd need somewhere to live. In my husband's situation, his ex's boyfriend paid the rent and major expenses. Kids often went without so one has to wonder where the money went? No activities, minimal clothing and when the kids were teens they got jobs to pay for their own needs.

Then I guess he should not have had a kid with the woman if she is the type of person that would steal from her own children. The number of parents paying child support to someone that they were not VOLUNTARILY SEXUALLY involved with is very, very low. SO-- maybe the real lesson is, "don't have sex with someone you don't want to parent with for the rest of the child's childhood and beyond."

Agreed. This goes for mom's who want to garnish wages immediately. Don't have kids with someone that might not help you take care of them financially.

[Anonymous]

$800/month...what ballpark income would a guy have for that to be the child support. It doesn't sound like it would cover half of childcare/food/clothes/activities/other costs for even a little kid.

[Anonymous]

The lesson is to assume men won’t voluntarily support their offspring if they aren’t having sex with the mom. Get a prenup that states a one time cash payout, Ladies, and don’t waste time looking back.

It’s getting to the point that I know far more stepdads taking care of kids than bio dads. So much for men not wanting to care for another male’s young. Maybe it’s the new way of asserting status? “I’m sleeping with her AND raising your kid, loser.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:$800/month...what ballpark income would a guy have for that to be the child support. It doesn't sound like it would cover half of childcare/food/clothes/activities/other costs for even a little kid.

My ex makes $75 and pays a BASE amount of $800/month, AND 50% childcare/medical/extra curricular a.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the step mom complaining about what child support was used for - its not for activities. It's for all child related expenses. My current child support order requires an amount based on his income as the base support, then 50% of childcare AND 50% of the cost of extra curricular activities.

The base support is used for things like gas for my car (kid goes to school 25minutes from my house and I have to drive him - ex doesn't do any school related driving), groceries (kiddo needs to eat), a small portion goes to college savings (ex is very unlikely to contribute), and paying utilities and the mortgage.

There is plenty of caselaw where dad's have asked courts for an accounting of what support is used for, and the courts have all refused - no its not discrimination against men - because the costs of raising a child can be very intangible and requiring an accounting of the money would be a waste of resources (both by the custodial parent AND the courts).

Stepmom here. I don't think that custodial parents should have to account for the money spent on their children. As far as I am concerned, DH pays his CS on time and in full and his ex can spend it how she wishes. We do wonder (to ourselves) how she is spending it since DH's child is not participating in any activities and we end up buying clothing and shoes, but it isn't something we (he) would ever broach with her. He picks up (financially) where he feels he needs to and leaves it at that. Child Support for him ends in a couple of years and then it will truly be a non-issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:$800/month...what ballpark income would a guy have for that to be the child support. It doesn't sound like it would cover half of childcare/food/clothes/activities/other costs for even a little kid.

Child support is based on income of the parents and each parent's portion isn't necessarily HALF. It depends on the breakdown of income. If he makes 55% of their combined income, then he is responsible for 55% of the cost of care. Likewise if he is making only 20%.

$800 a month is significant, when we are considering that it is ONE parent's financial contribution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just because his wages are garnished does not mean the custodial parent will get the total amount the non-custodial parent owes each month. My ex took a part-time job so I only got about half of what the court ordered each month. I know he was working full time but he must have gotten his employer to pay him partly under the table. He has owed a good thousand dollars for a year and a half. He makes sure to fly under the amount where his driver's license or passport won't be renewed though.

+1

It's amazing how ex-h can magically become unemployed and therefore have no wages to garnish. So, Op, it's easier said than done.

Op - don't you think (most) states already garnish wages automatically. It's not news breaking. MYOB in terms of giving your friend legal advice. She's already paying big bucks to her lawyer to take care of things like garnished wages.

Seriously,however well-intentioned, your input to your friend is not needed, out of line and potentially counterproductive. Just stop voicing your opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The lesson is to assume men won’t voluntarily support their offspring if they aren’t having sex with the mom. Get a prenup that states a one time cash payout, Ladies, and don’t waste time looking back.

It’s getting to the point that I know far more stepdads taking care of kids than bio dads. So much for men not wanting to care for another male’s young. Maybe it’s the new way of asserting status? “I’m sleeping with her AND raising your kid, loser.”

The lesson is assume you will get divorced and work out what it will look like financially. Currently 50 % of marriages end in divorce and children of divorce are more likely to divorce. Therefore very soon married people will be a small minority.

As to your final point if the step dad sees the child 100% of the time why is that surprising.

[Anonymous]

The states prefer garnishing because then the state knows if support is being paid. They keep a record of all the transactions, and if an action is brought for nonpayment it's easier to prove what was paid when.

If support is NOT being garnished, both parties should keep records of what is paid when.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The lesson is to assume men won’t voluntarily support their offspring if they aren’t having sex with the mom. Get a prenup that states a one time cash payout, Ladies, and don’t waste time looking back.

It’s getting to the point that I know far more stepdads taking care of kids than bio dads. So much for men not wanting to care for another male’s young. Maybe it’s the new way of asserting status? “I’m sleeping with her AND raising your kid, loser.”

The lesson is assume you will get divorced and work out what it will look like financially. Currently 50 % of marriages end in divorce and children of divorce are more likely to divorce. Therefore very soon married people will be a small minority.

As to your final point if the step dad sees the child 100% of the time why is that surprising.

It’s surprising given that many, if not most men say they wouldn’t want to support another man’s child. That wisdom is spouted on DCUM constantly when single or divorced moms mention wanting to date or remarry. Yet, I see a lot more men doing that than caring for their own kids when the sexual relationship with the mother is over.

[Anonymous]

I had my ex’s garnished for years and one day he asked me if we can do it offline as when he was changing jobs, setting it back up was a hassle. We’ve been offline about 6 years with no issues. He knows I’ll go through the state if needed. Luckily he’s afraid of the state coming after him so he pays on time and never skipped.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had my ex’s garnished for years and one day he asked me if we can do it offline as when he was changing jobs, setting it back up was a hassle. We’ve been offline about 6 years with no issues. He knows I’ll go through the state if needed. Luckily he’s afraid of the state coming after him so he pays on time and never skipped.

I'm glad he's paying and there has been no issue, but you need to get the order changed to "direct pay". Why? Because if you don't nothing he gives you is seen by the state and therefore the state has him listed as "in arrears". You may think that you'll never go after it so it doesn't matter, but the state will pull it from his social security checks.

Unless you changed the order 6 years ago, the state likely has him listed as in arrears by 6 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had my ex’s garnished for years and one day he asked me if we can do it offline as when he was changing jobs, setting it back up was a hassle. We’ve been offline about 6 years with no issues. He knows I’ll go through the state if needed. Luckily he’s afraid of the state coming after him so he pays on time and never skipped.

I'm glad he's paying and there has been no issue, but you need to get the order changed to "direct pay". Why? Because if you don't nothing he gives you is seen by the state and therefore the state has him listed as "in arrears". You may think that you'll never go after it so it doesn't matter, but the state will pull it from his social security checks.

Unless you changed the order 6 years ago, the state likely has him listed as in arrears by 6 years.

This is correct. My husband paid directly and had the cashed checks as proof and his ex took him to court saying he wasn't paying child support when he was paid in full and actually by the courts calculation had a huge overage as he shouldn't not have been paying what he was per the court order (alimony was supposed to stop as payment for the two oldest kids). She then tried to say it was a gift so he still owed it. It was a mess. He couldn't get back the overage but we could easily prove he paid. If it was an order through garnishment then if it is not through garnishment he will still owe the money to the child support office. His ex after that did a garnishment and would call screaming when the check was not on time (husband always sent it early to make sure it go there) and she wanted to change it back to direct pay which would have been another court hearing and we said no, garnishment so there was no more arguments nor did she need to have contact with us over money anymore. She wanted it so she could deal with the outcome of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$800/month...what ballpark income would a guy have for that to be the child support. It doesn't sound like it would cover half of childcare/food/clothes/activities/other costs for even a little kid.

Child support is based on income of the parents and each parent's portion isn't necessarily HALF. It depends on the breakdown of income. If he makes 55% of their combined income, then he is responsible for 55% of the cost of care. Likewise if he is making only 20%.

$800 a month is significant, when we are considering that it is ONE parent's financial contribution.

$800 is nominal, not significant. Typical before and after care in the DC area is close to $600 per month. Add in camp at an average of $300/week, and that comes out to $875/month in ONLY child care costs.

Then add in sports, tutoring, braces, a musical instrument— easily another $500/month.

And we haven’t even started the cost of housing, insurance, clothing.... sorry but $800 is pixie dust.

[Anonymous]

When I divorced I insisted on wage garnishment and payment through the state. I didn't want to be the person who had to chase down my ex when he decided he needed to leave a job without a new one. I let Virginia do that for me. It also protects him with a clear record of payment on file with the proper authorities.