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

Forum Index » Parenting -- Special Concerns

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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

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. [/quote]

[b]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. 
[/b]
[b]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. [/b]

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.[/quote]

She can do all of those things and still demonstrate accounting of it.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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

Yep i said that earlier in the thread[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics