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 a garnishee solves a few problems. There's always proof support was paid, for one thing. Take it off the cheque, deposit it in the other parent's account. The divorced parents don't need to discuss money. Ideally.

My ex was one who went with unemployed/underemployed. There is no fix for that.

I agree that it does remove the need to discuss money, but it is (in my opinion) unfair to the paying parent to have this level of interference without allowing that parent the opportunity to demonstrate that they can and will pay their child support on time. If garnishment becomes a requirement, then I think it is only fair that the receiving parent be required to document how they are spending the child support dollars--after all, why should they get the benefit of the doubt, but the child support paying parent doesn't?

I do agree that more should be done about parents who don't pay and those who are deliberately under/unemployed.

I don't see it as a punishment if it's how things are done for everyone.

Likewise, it shouldn't be considered a punishment if all child support receiving parents are required to account for how they spend that child support.

Courts have ruled a number of times that custodial parents do not have to account for the money because its used to provide a standard of living more comparable to a dual income family than a single income family. It's used for things like rent/mortgage, utilities, food, clothing, gas for the car, and forcing recipients to keep track of how every dollar is spent is overly burdensome.

There have been lawsuits over this, and courts have even said that a mother is not required to only use child support money on the child its meant for - for example a single mother with 2 children, by 2 different dads, one of whom pays and one of whom doesn't. The mother can use the child support she receives on BOTH children because forcing a mother to neglect one child because of their father's refusal to pay support is immoral and judicial overreaching.

As for garnishing wages, I have no problem with it from either side. My ex pays via wage garnishment, and it works well. It keeps BOTH parents honest. I, as the custodial parent, cannot go to court claiming that he never pays. And he can't go to court and claim that he did pay when he didn't. The state keeps track, so both parents are kept honest. It also means that I don't have to keep track - I know I receive it because it lands in my account regularly, but I don't have to keep records - that's being done by the state.

She can do all of those things and still demonstrate accounting of it.

[Anonymous]

Ok, I receive $800/mo in support. My mortgage payment per month is more than that. That's what I use support on. Accounted for. Done.

Is that what you're looking for?

I'm also reimbursed for childcare and extra curriculars. That money has been accounted for too.

We're done now right? Is that what you're looking for?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a garnishee solves a few problems. There's always proof support was paid, for one thing. Take it off the cheque, deposit it in the other parent's account. The divorced parents don't need to discuss money. Ideally.

My ex was one who went with unemployed/underemployed. There is no fix for that.

I agree that it does remove the need to discuss money, but it is (in my opinion) unfair to the paying parent to have this level of interference without allowing that parent the opportunity to demonstrate that they can and will pay their child support on time. If garnishment becomes a requirement, then I think it is only fair that the receiving parent be required to document how they are spending the child support dollars--after all, why should they get the benefit of the doubt, but the child support paying parent doesn't?

I do agree that more should be done about parents who don't pay and those who are deliberately under/unemployed.

I don't see it as a punishment if it's how things are done for everyone.

Likewise, it shouldn't be considered a punishment if all child support receiving parents are required to account for how they spend that child support.

Courts have ruled a number of times that custodial parents do not have to account for the money because its used to provide a standard of living more comparable to a dual income family than a single income family. It's used for things like rent/mortgage, utilities, food, clothing, gas for the car, and forcing recipients to keep track of how every dollar is spent is overly burdensome.

There have been lawsuits over this, and courts have even said that a mother is not required to only use child support money on the child its meant for - for example a single mother with 2 children, by 2 different dads, one of whom pays and one of whom doesn't. The mother can use the child support she receives on BOTH children because forcing a mother to neglect one child because of their father's refusal to pay support is immoral and judicial overreaching.

As for garnishing wages, I have no problem with it from either side. My ex pays via wage garnishment, and it works well. It keeps BOTH parents honest. I, as the custodial parent, cannot go to court claiming that he never pays. And he can't go to court and claim that he did pay when he didn't. The state keeps track, so both parents are kept honest. It also means that I don't have to keep track - I know I receive it because it lands in my account regularly, but I don't have to keep records - that's being done by the state.

She can do all of those things and still demonstrate accounting of it.

And if you don't want to be overly burdened then don't have children. It’s not hard to account for spending in this day and age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a garnishee solves a few problems. There's always proof support was paid, for one thing. Take it off the cheque, deposit it in the other parent's account. The divorced parents don't need to discuss money. Ideally.

My ex was one who went with unemployed/underemployed. There is no fix for that.

I agree that it does remove the need to discuss money, but it is (in my opinion) unfair to the paying parent to have this level of interference without allowing that parent the opportunity to demonstrate that they can and will pay their child support on time. If garnishment becomes a requirement, then I think it is only fair that the receiving parent be required to document how they are spending the child support dollars--after all, why should they get the benefit of the doubt, but the child support paying parent doesn't?

I do agree that more should be done about parents who don't pay and those who are deliberately under/unemployed.

I don't see it as a punishment if it's how things are done for everyone.

Likewise, it shouldn't be considered a punishment if all child support receiving parents are required to account for how they spend that child support.

Courts have ruled a number of times that custodial parents do not have to account for the money because its used to provide a standard of living more comparable to a dual income family than a single income family. It's used for things like rent/mortgage, utilities, food, clothing, gas for the car, and forcing recipients to keep track of how every dollar is spent is overly burdensome.

There have been lawsuits over this, and courts have even said that a mother is not required to only use child support money on the child its meant for - for example a single mother with 2 children, by 2 different dads, one of whom pays and one of whom doesn't. The mother can use the child support she receives on BOTH children because forcing a mother to neglect one child because of their father's refusal to pay support is immoral and judicial overreaching.

As for garnishing wages, I have no problem with it from either side. My ex pays via wage garnishment, and it works well. It keeps BOTH parents honest. I, as the custodial parent, cannot go to court claiming that he never pays. And he can't go to court and claim that he did pay when he didn't. The state keeps track, so both parents are kept honest. It also means that I don't have to keep track - I know I receive it because it lands in my account regularly, but I don't have to keep records - that's being done by the state.

She can do all of those things and still demonstrate accounting of it.

And if you don't want to be overly burdened then don't have children. It’s not hard to account for spending in this day and age.

But that also goes for the paying parent right? Don't want to pay child support? HAVE NO BABIES.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a garnishee solves a few problems. There's always proof support was paid, for one thing. Take it off the cheque, deposit it in the other parent's account. The divorced parents don't need to discuss money. Ideally.

My ex was one who went with unemployed/underemployed. There is no fix for that.

I agree that it does remove the need to discuss money, but it is (in my opinion) unfair to the paying parent to have this level of interference without allowing that parent the opportunity to demonstrate that they can and will pay their child support on time. If garnishment becomes a requirement, then I think it is only fair that the receiving parent be required to document how they are spending the child support dollars--after all, why should they get the benefit of the doubt, but the child support paying parent doesn't?

I do agree that more should be done about parents who don't pay and those who are deliberately under/unemployed.

I don't see it as a punishment if it's how things are done for everyone.

Likewise, it shouldn't be considered a punishment if all child support receiving parents are required to account for how they spend that child support.

Courts have ruled a number of times that custodial parents do not have to account for the money because its used to provide a standard of living more comparable to a dual income family than a single income family. It's used for things like rent/mortgage, utilities, food, clothing, gas for the car, and forcing recipients to keep track of how every dollar is spent is overly burdensome.

There have been lawsuits over this, and courts have even said that a mother is not required to only use child support money on the child its meant for - for example a single mother with 2 children, by 2 different dads, one of whom pays and one of whom doesn't. The mother can use the child support she receives on BOTH children because forcing a mother to neglect one child because of their father's refusal to pay support is immoral and judicial overreaching.

As for garnishing wages, I have no problem with it from either side. My ex pays via wage garnishment, and it works well. It keeps BOTH parents honest. I, as the custodial parent, cannot go to court claiming that he never pays. And he can't go to court and claim that he did pay when he didn't. The state keeps track, so both parents are kept honest. It also means that I don't have to keep track - I know I receive it because it lands in my account regularly, but I don't have to keep records - that's being done by the state.

She can do all of those things and still demonstrate accounting of it.

And if you don't want to be overly burdened then don't have children. It’s not hard to account for spending in this day and age.

But that also goes for the paying parent right? Don't want to pay child support? HAVE NO BABIES.

Yep i said that earlier in the thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I receive $800/mo in support. My mortgage payment per month is more than that. That's what I use support on. Accounted for. Done.

Is that what you're looking for?

I'm also reimbursed for childcare and extra curriculars. That money has been accounted for too.

We're done now right? Is that what you're looking for?

I think you are missing the larger point (which has been made several times in this thread).

If we don't trust people to pay their child support, then we garnish their wages. If we don't trust people to use child support for their children, we require them to account for how the child support money is spent.

Some people in this thread have stated that wage garnishment is a part of their agreement/support order, and that it works fine for them. In my husband's case there is no support order and he and his ex have made their own arrangement and that works fine for them.

Some of us don't feel that wage garnishment or child support accounting should be implemented across the board--it should be done only if the adults in question want it done, or in cases where the trust has been breached by non payment or misuse of child support funds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I receive $800/mo in support. My mortgage payment per month is more than that. That's what I use support on. Accounted for. Done.

Is that what you're looking for?

I'm also reimbursed for childcare and extra curriculars. That money has been accounted for too.

We're done now right? Is that what you're looking for?

I think you are missing the larger point (which has been made several times in this thread).

If we don't trust people to pay their child support, then we garnish their wages. If we don't trust people to use child support for their children, we require them to account for how the child support money is spent.

Some people in this thread have stated that wage garnishment is a part of their agreement/support order, and that it works fine for them. In my husband's case there is no support order and he and his ex have made their own arrangement and that works fine for them.

Some of us don't feel that wage garnishment or child support accounting should be implemented across the board--it should be done only if the adults in question want it done, or in cases where the trust has been breached by non payment or misuse of child support funds.

And you're missing the point that the courts have heard ALL these arguments before. And they've said that as long as child support is used a way that is "beneficial to the child" they will NOT require an accounting. That has been interpreted very broadly. The courts have spoken. You are entitled to your opinion - but you'll lose the fight. People have tried and failed to use this shitty excuse to get access to their ex's financial information.

And as far as garnishing, the states deal with custodial parents complaining they did NOT receive money, as well as non-custodial parents claiming they did pay when they didn't.

All states that I know of allow parents OPT-OUT of garnishment orders. Some people do. Some people disagree and so it's garnished. Again, it's been litigated. The courts have spoken, and they agree across the board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I receive $800/mo in support. My mortgage payment per month is more than that. That's what I use support on. Accounted for. Done.

Is that what you're looking for?

I'm also reimbursed for childcare and extra curriculars. That money has been accounted for too.

We're done now right? Is that what you're looking for?

I think you are missing the larger point (which has been made several times in this thread).

If we don't trust people to pay their child support, then we garnish their wages. If we don't trust people to use child support for their children, we require them to account for how the child support money is spent.

Some people in this thread have stated that wage garnishment is a part of their agreement/support order, and that it works fine for them. In my husband's case there is no support order and he and his ex have made their own arrangement and that works fine for them.

Some of us don't feel that wage garnishment or child support accounting should be implemented across the board--it should be done only if the adults in question want it done, or in cases where the trust has been breached by non payment or misuse of child support funds.

And you're missing the point that the courts have heard ALL these arguments before. And they've said that as long as child support is used a way that is "beneficial to the child" they will NOT require an accounting. That has been interpreted very broadly. The courts have spoken. You are entitled to your opinion - but you'll lose the fight. People have tried and failed to use this shitty excuse to get access to their ex's financial information.

And as far as garnishing, the states deal with custodial parents complaining they did NOT receive money, as well as non-custodial parents claiming they did pay when they didn't.

All states that I know of allow parents OPT-OUT of garnishment orders. Some people do. Some people disagree and so it's garnished. Again, it's been litigated. The courts have spoken, and they agree across the board.

I understand that this is obviously very personal for you, judging from your responses.

Still, wage garnishment is not[u] automatic (again, depends on the state), which is presumably why this thread was created in the first place....to ask why it isn't.

Of course I have my opinion and I have stated it: Wage garnishment should not be automatic, unless someone has shown unwillingness to pay.

Ultimately what happens in each situation is dependent on the adults in that situation and the state they reside in, that much we can agree on.

That being said, I think the majority of parents receiving or paying child support are doing so in the manner in which it was intended, but it certainly is unfortunate when the opposite occurs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I receive $800/mo in support. My mortgage payment per month is more than that. That's what I use support on. Accounted for. Done.

Is that what you're looking for?

I'm also reimbursed for childcare and extra curriculars. That money has been accounted for too.

We're done now right? Is that what you're looking for?

Your child is not your roommate. You'd have the house regardless of the child so the calculation should be based on how much extra does it cost you to have your child in your home. I know for us, its very little as its only a very very small amount of utilities. We would have our house regardless as we need a place to live.

[Anonymous]

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?

Because missed payments can mean missed rent or not enough money to pay for food or utilities for some people. This is what happened to my sister. She didn't have his wages garnished because he "promised" to send child support. After months of missed payments, she finally had his wages garnished, and then he got really upset with her. I kept telling her to garnish his wages from the get go. They got a divorce because he was incredibly selfish and immature. That should've been red flag for her to garnish his wages, but she gave him the benefit of doubt.

I get that, but garnished wages from the paying parent could also result in missed rent, or not enough money for food or utilities. I guess I'm trying to say that it seems like there is the perception that child support paying parents are not to be trusted, but child support receiving parents are (as per the title of this thread).

Yes there are deadbeat dads out there. There are also deadbeat moms. Some people choose not to pay their child support or are deliberately unemployed or underemployed. Some people receive child support and choose not to spend it on their children. But this is not the case across the board and I disagree with automatically garnishing wages from a parent just because of the bad behavior of a few...not unless the same scrutiny will be applied to those receiving child support.

Or, the wage garnishment from the state could be late to the CP even though it was taken from the NCP and cause issues for the CP who is relying on that money. My husband used to direct pay and he'd always pay early. Ex insisted it be a garnshment (she tells the kids he's a deadbeat so she didn't like the checks coming to the house so if its a garnshment it comes from the state, not him) and it was usually a week later as they needed processing time. She'd call screaming at him about it and he'd tell her it was your choice, you deal with it as it came out of my check and I'm not paying twice.

Or, my husband had a job and military pension. She got a portion of the military pension. His job was garnished. She was not entitled to the rest of the pension but she submitted the court order anyway and was getting a double garnishment from both checks. He had to take it to court to get the one removed from the military and it was gross as the judge refused to make her pay back the money. So, for 6 months she was getting double what she should and no one considered he needed something to live on.

My husband's ex also claimed when he self-paid that he didn't pay and the money he showed he did pay was a gift and not child support... we spent hours fighting over it in court as she wanted to claim it wasn't child support. Turned out two of the three kids and her alimony should have been removed so she really messed herself over as she walked away with child support for one child that time. The garnishment if done properly is so much better. Even though he had every payment fully documented with a copy of her signing the check she still tried to lie about it all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Child support is to help cover the costs of basics...that doesn't necessarily include extras such as sports, tutoring, musical instruments, etc (those are not required). I am the poster who said that $800 is significant; but regardless of how one feels about the amount, it doesn't change the fact that child support orders are based on the incomes of the parents.

A calculator is used and it does not take into account those 'extras' mentioned earlier. Parents can negotiate the costs of those on their own.

The calculator (at least for Maryland) doesn't take into account housing, but it does take into account insurance.

Some extras can be negotiated between the parents, others like Childcare and Health Insurance are MANDATORY additions to the amount of child support awarded.

It sounds like you are saying that child support is calculated and after that the costs of childcare and health insurance are added. That is not true for the State of Maryland, where the child support order already takes into account the costs of childcare and health insurance. But don't take my word for it...here is a link to the worksheet:

http://www.dhr.state.md.us/CSOCGuide/App/worksheetA.do

You're wrong. Even in MD.

https://www.peoples-law.org/calculating-child-support

The pertinent part, copy and pasted:

1. Figure out each parent's actual income.

2. Figure out each parent's adjusted actual income or imputed income.

3. Add up both parents' adjusted actual incomes or their imputed incomes. The combined amount is plugged into the Guidelines chart to determine the "basic child support obligation."

4. Factor in some additional expenses, including health insurance costs, daycare costs and extraordinary medical expenses. This generates the "total child support obligation."

5. The non-custodial parent is responsible for paying a percentage of the total child support obligation.

The BASE support amount is based on a percentage of income. The TOTAL support amount includes a calculation of what percentage of health insurance, medical costs, and childcare each parent is required to pay.

Some states order the child support percentage to be reimbursed directly by the non-custodial parent (this is what my order requires - it is from a state several hundred miles from here), some include the cost of childcare in the monthly ordered amount. I prefer the way my order handles it, because then we don't have to change the order every time the child care amount changes.

So...
1. I'm not wrong about the State of Maryland and how child support orders are calculated (and they include childcare and insurance)
2. You like the way your state handles it (and I agree that it is much easier to ADD that portion, since once the child is no longer in daycare, or insurance costs are switched among parents, a new calculation must be done)

got it.

You're wrong in the sense that a custodial parent is NOT expected to pay for childcare themselves with child support that is just based solely on a percentage of income with no extras. And I bet that in MD parents can agree to add child care paid proportionally by each parent, which is how MD adds child care to the BASE amount (which is basically a straight percentage of income).

Every state does it differently. My husband's child support included child care. He was not required to pay anything extra. Everything but medical was included in the child support. However, given she had access to my husband's insurance which had no co-pays or deductibles and she refused to use it the judge at one point ordered her to fully pay all medical as he was ordered to provide the medical care and did and she wanted to use hers and he pay. Made no sense when kids had free care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My exDW pays me $329 per month, we have shared, split custody. She didn’t think she would have to pay b/c she’s a woman. Hah!

No, it just means she waaay outearns you. Probably by about $50k since I outearn my ex by under that and I don’t have to pay him.

Her taxable income is $136K. My taxable is $125K. I pay health insurance b/c my employer has a better and less expensive plan. Not included are a few non taxable income streams that vary from year to year but bring my yearly average to $145K.

[Anonymous]

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?

Because missed payments can mean missed rent or not enough money to pay for food or utilities for some people. This is what happened to my sister. She didn't have his wages garnished because he "promised" to send child support. After months of missed payments, she finally had his wages garnished, and then he got really upset with her. I kept telling her to garnish his wages from the get go. They got a divorce because he was incredibly selfish and immature. That should've been red flag for her to garnish his wages, but she gave him the benefit of doubt.

I get that, but garnished wages from the paying parent could also result in missed rent, or not enough money for food or utilities. I guess I'm trying to say that it seems like there is the perception that child support paying parents are not to be trusted, but child support receiving parents are (as per the title of this thread).

Yes there are deadbeat dads out there. There are also deadbeat moms. Some people choose not to pay their child support or are deliberately unemployed or underemployed. Some people receive child support and choose not to spend it on their children. But this is not the case across the board and I disagree with automatically garnishing wages from a parent just because of the bad behavior of a few...not unless the same scrutiny will be applied to those receiving child support.

NP. In theory, this seems logical. In application, the variants present in most divorces where wage garnishment is occurring unvoluntariky, there are other factors at play that can cause greater damage in high conflict environments amongst guardians. Co parenting is a partnership, not a solitary operation. It would be a waste of the courts time with a high risk of exposure to deceit, power, control and manipulation tactics in abusive situations that could escalate at any moment. There is an economically advantageous social goal of having rules established and introducing matters of disagreement only for the most grave needs of a court of law. As such, I can see the other side of ge argument that supports the conditions of wage garnishment if it’s determined you’re breaking he law by not supporting your child. I’d uoure going to change that law, you’re opening a door to how all must parents for account for expanse around their child, outside of what’s acceptably by established constitutional tax laws. There are checks and balances already established in our system when you view things in the aggregate. And the consequences are the same for anyone who breaks that law; a removal of resource (freedom/jail, money/fine, privilege/license suspension, etc)

FWIW, I’m divorcing, left a high conflict marriage, and struggle with issues of power and control with my ex, despite periods we have both had of financial dependence or independence At some point, without regard to which side of the end you’re on, allowing contention to drag out is directkybor indirectlu detrimental to the child(ten) in some way. Which is why some children are removed from the care of their parents in extreme cases.

If a law on reverse reporting accounts for the risks in dragging out disputes and challenges in historically contentious, abusive or high conflict cases, perhaps removed the requirement in that case, then I believe there are less risks for manipulation or mos intent of your suggested purpose in such a law.,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a garnishee solves a few problems. There's always proof support was paid, for one thing. Take it off the cheque, deposit it in the other parent's account. The divorced parents don't need to discuss money. Ideally.

My ex was one who went with unemployed/underemployed. There is no fix for that.

I agree that it does remove the need to discuss money, but it is (in my opinion) unfair to the paying parent to have this level of interference without allowing that parent the opportunity to demonstrate that they can and will pay their child support on time. If garnishment becomes a requirement, then I think it is only fair that the receiving parent be required to document how they are spending the child support dollars--after all, why should they get the benefit of the doubt, but the child support paying parent doesn't?

I do agree that more should be done about parents who don't pay and those who are deliberately under/unemployed.

I don't see it as a punishment if it's how things are done for everyone.

Likewise, it shouldn't be considered a punishment if all child support receiving parents are required to account for how they spend that child support.

Courts have ruled a number of times that custodial parents do not have to account for the money because its used to provide a standard of living more comparable to a dual income family than a single income family. It's used for things like rent/mortgage, utilities, food, clothing, gas for the car, and forcing recipients to keep track of how every dollar is spent is overly burdensome.

There have been lawsuits over this, and courts have even said that a mother is not required to only use child support money on the child its meant for - for example a single mother with 2 children, by 2 different dads, one of whom pays and one of whom doesn't. The mother can use the child support she receives on BOTH children because forcing a mother to neglect one child because of their father's refusal to pay support is immoral and judicial overreaching.

As for garnishing wages, I have no problem with it from either side. My ex pays via wage garnishment, and it works well. It keeps BOTH parents honest. I, as the custodial parent, cannot go to court claiming that he never pays. And he can't go to court and claim that he did pay when he didn't. The state keeps track, so both parents are kept honest. It also means that I don't have to keep track - I know I receive it because it lands in my account regularly, but I don't have to keep records - that's being done by the state.

+1. Excellent examples

[Anonymous]

This is why having as much WISDOM as you can about the inherent qualities of a person are so much more important than judging potential mate and parent by what you know and see. And why OBJECTIVE contradictions with those qualities are so important to search out as red flags. From there, assess the wisest response on how the greater good for an innocent child I s achieved moving forward: repair and restore, or rebuke and remove.