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]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?[/quote]
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.[/quote]

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).

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

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.,

[/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