The national news program Fox and Friends will be addressing the pros and cons of "deadbeat parents" on pizza boxes tomorrow. I believe the program will run in the morning. I will be on along with Cynthia Brown, executive director of the Butler County Child Enforcement Agency. Write to the program with your view.
The A.P sent out the story by wire which can be read at the link below.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,261051,00.html
My only concern is accuracy. As long as they can ensure accuracy and have recourse for someone who's wrongly publicized, I would agree with it.
The problem is that there are so many false accusations (much like false accusations of abuse). They need to find a way to weed those out and give the accused sufficient opportunity to set the record straight.
Addition:
I thought about this some more and there's an inherent flaw in the concept that makes it completely impractical.
If you allow for the CP to get the 'deadbeat parent' put onto pizza boxes without giving the parent the ability to contest it, then it will be abused (I can already see my stbx claiming that I'm a deadbeat because she's only gotten 65% of my paycheck instead of the 90% she wants).
If, on the other hand, you require that the 'deadbeat parent' be allowed to defend themselves and show that they've paid appropriate amounts, you need to be able to contact them. If you can contact them, the state can attach their wages if there are arrears.
I can't see any scenario where one could fairly put a parent's picture onto a pizza box. If you don't know where they are, they have no chance to defend themselves against potentially false accusations. If you do know where they are, you should be able to collect the money.
"I can't see any scenario where one could fairly put a parent's picture onto a pizza box. If you don't know where they are, they have no chance to defend themselves against potentially false accusations."
However, on the reciprocal end, would it be fair to say that if the paying parent can be labled on a pizza box, can not the receiving parent be labeld as well? I mean - for instance in our case, we have never been found in contempt, but BM has been found for violations ranging from giving the school fasified information (not telling them the child had a father) to visitain denials, to leaving the state and leaving the child with anyone but the father, and 6 times for refusing to obey the courts orders.
No comment necessary, just a thought to ponder on...........
This is not about deadbeat parents, this is about deadbeat dads (even though the article was written gender-neutral).
Who is labeled a deadbeat parent?
First off, certainly not mothers.
Second, even a father who pays 99% of his ordered child support, is labeled a deadbeat.
And most men who do not pay all of the ordered CS, don't do so because they can't.
If you get laid off, and have to take a job with lesser pay, you can't make your CS payments in full anymore.
If you only make a few bucks, and half of that is supposed to go to CS, then you can't survive anymore.
If your CS is set higher than your income (based on lies from the PBFH), then what do you do?
Go ahead, and find the real deadbeats; dads AND moms who make plenty of money, but just refuse to pay and disappear. Parents with a good education, who refuse to get (or hold) a job.
And post their faces on billboards if you want to.
But don't go after dads who are not allowed to see their kids, or can't see their kids because they have to work 2 or 3 jobs and still cannot pay CS in full.
Kent!
>This is not about deadbeat parents, this is about deadbeat
>dads (even though the article was written gender-neutral).
>
>Who is labeled a deadbeat parent?
>
>First off, certainly not mothers.
>
>Second, even a father who pays 99% of his ordered child
>support, is labeled a deadbeat.
>
>And most men who do not pay all of the ordered CS, don't do so
>because they can't.
>If you get laid off, and have to take a job with lesser pay,
>you can't make your CS payments in full anymore.
>If you only make a few bucks, and half of that is supposed to
>go to CS, then you can't survive anymore.
>If your CS is set higher than your income (based on lies from
>the PBFH), then what do you do?
>
>Go ahead, and find the real deadbeats; dads AND moms who make
>plenty of money, but just refuse to pay and disappear. Parents
>with a good education, who refuse to get (or hold) a job.
>And post their faces on billboards if you want to.
>
>But don't go after dads who are not allowed to see their kids,
>or can't see their kids because they have to work 2 or 3 jobs
>and still cannot pay CS in full.
>
How do you fairly decide who to go after and who not to go after? Someone has to make an arbitrary decision - and arbitrary decisions are bad.
As I said, the only fair way to do this is if people have a chance to defend themselves (innocent until proven guilty, right?). If you know where they are so they can defend themselves, you can collect the money. If you don't know where they are, then they can't defend themselves.
My concern is that wtihout appropriate protection, it will end up just like the accusations of child abuse. For child abuse, you DO have the right to defend yourself, but the percentage of false claims is still huge. In this case, since you don't have the ability to defend yourself, the misuse will be even worse.
I'm dealing with a stbx who has already made one false claim of sexual abuse against her first husband and is threatening something similar against me. In spite of the fact that she has had about 60% of our joint income for the past 5 months, she's telling everyone she knows that I'm starving her and never pay her anything. If this proposal were enacted, my face would be on a pizza box tomorrow - completely falsely - and would destroy my career.
If your STBX is threatening you with a fals allegation, you need to do something about it NOW. Don't wait - because once she does it your life will never be the same. It's one of those things that will always make people question things - even if you can manager to prove that it never happened. If you don't have a lawyer, get one now. Trust me, you don't want to be playing defense against this.
>If your STBX is threatening you with a fals allegation, you
>need to do something about it NOW. Don't wait - because once
>she does it your life will never be the same. It's one of
>those things that will always make people question things -
>even if you can manager to prove that it never happened. If
>you don't have a lawyer, get one now. Trust me, you don't
>want to be playing defense against this.
I have a lawyer involved and it's well taken care of. In fact, if she makes the false accusations now, that would give me the grounds I need for sole custody.
I heard about this last week, and there is one other thing to consider...what about the child(ren) who sees his parent's picture on that pizza box?
ps...where've you been, Lawmoe? Good to see you back. :)
>My only concern is accuracy. As long as they can ensure
>accuracy and have recourse for someone who's wrongly
>publicized, I would agree with it.
>
>The problem is that there are so many false accusations (much
>like false accusations of abuse). They need to find a way to
>weed those out and give the accused sufficient opportunity to
>set the record straight.
>
>Addition:
>I thought about this some more and there's an inherent flaw in
>the concept that makes it completely impractical.
>
>If you allow for the CP to get the 'deadbeat parent' put onto
>pizza boxes without giving the parent the ability to contest
>it, then it will be abused (I can already see my stbx claiming
>that I'm a deadbeat because she's only gotten 65% of my
>paycheck instead of the 90% she wants).
>
>If, on the other hand, you require that the 'deadbeat parent'
>be allowed to defend themselves and show that they've paid
>appropriate amounts, you need to be able to contact them. If
>you can contact them, the state can attach their wages if
>there are arrears.
>
>I can't see any scenario where one could fairly put a parent's
>picture onto a pizza box. If you don't know where they are,
>they have no chance to defend themselves against potentially
>false accusations. If you do know where they are, you should
>be able to collect the money.
If one doesn't know where they are, chances are very good that they aren't paying their child support at all. Nor are they seeing the child(ren).
I think that it is a good idea for those parents who are thousands of dollars in arrears.
>>This is not about deadbeat parents, this is about deadbeat
>>dads (even though the article was written gender-neutral).
>>
>>Who is labeled a deadbeat parent?
>>
>>First off, certainly not mothers.
>>
>>Second, even a father who pays 99% of his ordered child
>>support, is labeled a deadbeat.
>>
>>And most men who do not pay all of the ordered CS, don't do
>so
>>because they can't.
>>If you get laid off, and have to take a job with lesser pay,
>>you can't make your CS payments in full anymore.
>>If you only make a few bucks, and half of that is supposed
>to
>>go to CS, then you can't survive anymore.
>>If your CS is set higher than your income (based on lies
>from
>>the PBFH), then what do you do?
>>
>>Go ahead, and find the real deadbeats; dads AND moms who
>make
>>plenty of money, but just refuse to pay and disappear.
>Parents
>>with a good education, who refuse to get (or hold) a job.
>>And post their faces on billboards if you want to.
>>
>>But don't go after dads who are not allowed to see their
>kids,
>>or can't see their kids because they have to work 2 or 3
>jobs
>>and still cannot pay CS in full.
>>
>
>How do you fairly decide who to go after and who not to go
>after? Someone has to make an arbitrary decision - and
>arbitrary decisions are bad.
>
>As I said, the only fair way to do this is if people have a
>chance to defend themselves (innocent until proven guilty,
>right?). If you know where they are so they can defend
>themselves, you can collect the money. If you don't know where
>they are, then they can't defend themselves.
>
>My concern is that wtihout appropriate protection, it will end
>up just like the accusations of child abuse. For child abuse,
>you DO have the right to defend yourself, but the percentage
>of false claims is still huge. In this case, since you don't
>have the ability to defend yourself, the misuse will be even
>worse.
>
>I'm dealing with a stbx who has already made one false claim
>of sexual abuse against her first husband and is threatening
>something similar against me. In spite of the fact that she
>has had about 60% of our joint income for the past 5 months,
>she's telling everyone she knows that I'm starving her and
>never pay her anything. If this proposal were enacted, my face
>would be on a pizza box tomorrow - completely falsely - and
>would destroy my career.
Are you paying the support through the courts? If so, then you shouldn't have anything to worry about. It should be the agency that collects child support that makes the decision to put the non-paying person on the pizza box, not the CP for the above reason.
>
>Are you paying the support through the courts? If so, then
>you shouldn't have anything to worry about. It should be the
>agency that collects child support that makes the decision to
>put the non-paying person on the pizza box, not the CP for the
>above reason.
So you're saying that agencies never make mistakes?
If the agency makes a mistake, the person should have a chance to defend themselves. If the agency has an address, they should be able to collect the money if there's any money to collect. If there's no address, there's no way for the person to defend themselves. I can't imagine how badly abused this would be if it were allowed.
>If one doesn't know where they are, chances are very good that
>they aren't paying their child support at all. Nor are they
>seeing the child(ren).
>
>I think that it is a good idea for those parents who are
>thousands of dollars in arrears.
But if there's no way for the parent to defend themselves, then you have one person making a final decision with no appeal. I don't care if it's the CP, the judge, the CS agency, or Santa Claus. No one should have to put up with this type of disgrace without a chance to defend themselves. There are too many opportunities for abuse.
What about the kid who see's their parent's face on a pizza box, or who's friends see it. Imagine the shame they might feel, the teasing they might have to endure. I think they're might be a better way of doing this.
My DH could be seen as being in arrears, and unfairly put on there. Some of you may remember me posting about his story. He made an agreement (signed and notarized, but not through the courts) to have 50/50 custody, and he would continue to pay health care but neither party would pay any CS. Well, little did we know that since it wasn't through the court, it meant nothing. All along he paid all child care, sent clothes and coats and shoes over to BM's house, basically made sure all of SS's needs were met.
Now, 2 1/2 years later, we go for custody and she decides to file for unpaid CS. We win custody. She wins $11k in CS. Now, DH wasn't held in contempt, and as long as he pays at least $250/mo we're fine.
But, if they wanted to put him on a pizza box, I'm assuming they could. And not because he didn't care for his child, but b/c BM found a loophole that we didn't know about and DH fell for it.
Just a liitle vent, while I'm at it. We gave her over $1k last month. This weekend she took him to his soccer game, but had SS tell us that we needed to bring his shorts and shin guard and cleats b/c BM doesn't have the money for it. She could get all that stuff for $30. Not to mention we already bought an extra jersey and socks for her to keep at her house. How does she not have the money? She lives with her parents, so were did the money we gave her go?
>
>>If one doesn't know where they are, chances are very good
>that
>>they aren't paying their child support at all. Nor are they
>>seeing the child(ren).
>>
>>I think that it is a good idea for those parents who are
>>thousands of dollars in arrears.
>
>
>But if there's no way for the parent to defend themselves,
>then you have one person making a final decision with no
>appeal. I don't care if it's the CP, the judge, the CS agency,
>or Santa Claus. No one should have to put up with this type of
>disgrace without a chance to defend themselves. There are too
>many opportunities for abuse.
If the person can't be found, what are the chances that the person is actually paying the child support?
No child should have to put up with a parent who does not pay child support.
>My DH could be seen as being in arrears, and unfairly put on
>there. Some of you may remember me posting about his story.
>He made an agreement (signed and notarized, but not through
>the courts) to have 50/50 custody, and he would continue to
>pay health care but neither party would pay any CS. Well,
>little did we know that since it wasn't through the court, it
>meant nothing. All along he paid all child care, sent clothes
>and coats and shoes over to BM's house, basically made sure
>all of SS's needs were met.
>Now, 2 1/2 years later, we go for custody and she decides to
>file for unpaid CS. We win custody. She wins $11k in CS.
>Now, DH wasn't held in contempt, and as long as he pays at
>least $250/mo we're fine.
>But, if they wanted to put him on a pizza box, I'm assuming
>they could. And not because he didn't care for his child, but
>b/c BM found a loophole that we didn't know about and DH fell
>for it.
>
>Just a liitle vent, while I'm at it. We gave her over $1k
>last month. This weekend she took him to his soccer game, but
>had SS tell us that we needed to bring his shorts and shin
>guard and cleats b/c BM doesn't have the money for it. She
>could get all that stuff for $30. Not to mention we already
>bought an extra jersey and socks for her to keep at her house.
> How does she not have the money? She lives with her parents,
>so were did the money we gave her go?
No, they couldn't. Because he is paying his arrears (which I do think is stupid that she got).
The pizza box would be for the parents who aren't paying at all.
>
>No, they couldn't. Because he is paying his arrears (which I
>do think is stupid that she got).
>
>The pizza box would be for the parents who aren't paying at
>all.
Says who?
Oh, sure. It might start there. But what happens when deadbeats get smart and start sending $1.00 per month in? They're no longer meeting your requirement (not paying at all), but they're just as guilty as someone who pays nothing (perhaps more so since the person who pays nothing might be dead, or disabled, or not know that they owe money).
It won't take long until someone decides that putting only those who pay something, but not enough, deserve to be on the box.
And it still doesn't address the key issue - a person has the right to defend themselves. If they can get thrown on the box without having a chance to present their side of the story, it's unfair.
Finally, I'd be interested in some evidence of how many people this would actually affect. That is, how many nonpaying parents are pure deadbeats (plenty of income but just won't pay)? I would venture that for many, there are good reasons - loss of job, disability, death, etc. FURTHERMORE, of the ones who just won't pay, why can't the CS agency collect from them? If they have a job and a social security number, it should be possible to collect - every state in the country allows wages to be attached.
Therefore, the only people who should (even in principle) be put onto these boxes are those who meet ALL of the following conditions:
1. They actually owe money (and not just some vengeful cp saying that they do)
2. The CS agency has tried every reasonable and legal method to collect and failed to do so
3. The NCP has resources to pay
4. The NCP is contacted and given the opportunity to present evidence that they're NOT a deadbeat and is unwilling or unable to
The number who meet all 4 conditions is probably tiny.
This is another of those 'feel good' things where people think they're doing a good thing but only because they haven't thought it through. I would argue that a much more effective method would be to spend the money on enforcement rather than some witch hunt which won't help anyone, anyway.
>What about the kid who see's their parent's face on a pizza
>box, or who's friends see it. Imagine the shame they might
>feel, the teasing they might have to endure. I think they're
>might be a better way of doing this.
Or, worse yet, the kid whose father has died and doesn't get removed from the list so he sees his deceased father labeled as a deadbeat dad. Or even disabled and unable to pay.
(Yes, in principle, those people should be removed from the list, but given the inefficiency of CS agencies, a lot would slip through the cracks).
>
>>
>>No, they couldn't. Because he is paying his arrears (which
>I
>>do think is stupid that she got).
>>
>>The pizza box would be for the parents who aren't paying at
>>all.
>
>
>Says who?
>
>Oh, sure. It might start there. But what happens when
>deadbeats get smart and start sending $1.00 per month in?
>They're no longer meeting your requirement (not paying at
>all), but they're just as guilty as someone who pays nothing
>(perhaps more so since the person who pays nothing might be
>dead, or disabled, or not know that they owe money).
>
>It won't take long until someone decides that putting only
>those who pay something, but not enough, deserve to be on the
>box.
>
>And it still doesn't address the key issue - a person has the
>right to defend themselves. If they can get thrown on the box
>without having a chance to present their side of the story,
>it's unfair.
>
>Finally, I'd be interested in some evidence of how many people
>this would actually affect. That is, how many nonpaying
>parents are pure deadbeats (plenty of income but just won't
>pay)? I would venture that for many, there are good reasons -
>loss of job, disability, death, etc. FURTHERMORE, of the ones
>who just won't pay, why can't the CS agency collect from them?
>If they have a job and a social security number, it should be
>possible to collect - every state in the country allows wages
>to be attached.
>
>Therefore, the only people who should (even in principle) be
>put onto these boxes are those who meet ALL of the following
>conditions:
>1. They actually owe money (and not just some vengeful cp
>saying that they do)
>2. The CS agency has tried every reasonable and legal method
>to collect and failed to do so
>3. The NCP has resources to pay
>4. The NCP is contacted and given the opportunity to present
>evidence that they're NOT a deadbeat and is unwilling or
>unable to
>
>The number who meet all 4 conditions is probably tiny.
>
>This is another of those 'feel good' things where people think
>they're doing a good thing but only because they haven't
>thought it through. I would argue that a much more effective
>method would be to spend the money on enforcement rather than
>some witch hunt which won't help anyone, anyway.
$1.00 a month towards child support just doesn't count.
Sorry, but if you are not going to pay child support, you are going to have to live with the consequences.
Again, if they KNEW where the ncp was, they would be collecting child support. Kind of hard to enforce a court order when you don't know where the person is.
Which is the "witch hunt" comes in. Their face is on a pizza box. Someone who knows where they are just may report them. Then they can enforce the court order.
BTW, this "witch hunt" is also used in wanted posters of people who are suspects in crimes. Are you saying that we should eliminate that since the person on poster has not been contacted?
$1.00 a month does count, by your previous definition, because they are paying "something". Unless you're going to define what "something" is, it counts.
There are a lot of reasons why a person may not be paying "something" enough to stay out of trouble, as the previous poster tried to say. Imagine if you were an NCP, paying a third of your pre-tax income in child support, then you're probably paying more than that to exercise your visitation. You're probably left with just enough to get by. Something disaterous happens - say you lose your job, you're in a horrific accident, etc. Suddenly, you have no income. You also have no savings. You have to make a choice between child support and feeding yourself, or putting a roof over your head. So, you pay what you can, but less than the order. That, in our current system, makes you a deadbeat, and qualifies you to be on the pizza box. That's a problem.
The problem in many of these cases isn't knowing where the people are. Even if they knew where they were they couldn't get the money from them if the just didn't have it. Hiding doesn't keep these people from paying - it keeps them out of jail. Which, btw, would only compound the issue. How can you earn enough to support your kids if you're sitting in jail?
I agree with wanted posters for suspects of violent crime. They are a danger to society, and it's in everyone's best interest to keep them off the street. That's not the case here. Now you're classifying fathers who can't pay child support in the same group as rapists and murders. Is that really fair?
>If the person can't be found, what are the chances that the
>person is actually paying the child support?
How many people have actually not been found after a significant effort? In my experience, the majority of people I've heard about weren't identified because CS didn't make much of an effort. Seems to me that the more appropriate action would be to make the effort to find them.
>
>No child should have to put up with a parent who does not pay
>child support.
No person should have to put up with being wrongfully labeled a deadbeat.
Or are you still claiming that this system will magically be perfect and no one will ever be mislabeled? And if the system is perfect, then they'd be able to find all the people who owe child support, so it's not needed, anyway.
>
>$1.00 a month towards child support just doesn't count.
You just proved my point.
First you said it was only for people who aren't paying at all. Now, you're saying it's for people who aren't paying what you think is enough. See how things get distorted?
It gets left to the whims of some caseworker or judge to determine who to penalize. Better for them to do their job and find the person rather than demonizing people who may be innocent.
>
>Sorry, but if you are not going to pay child support, you are
>going to have to live with the consequences.
You're missing the point.
What about the people who don't owe child support but who are wrongfully targeted?
I don't have any problem with people being forced to pay child support if they owe it. I fully support going after them with the full force of the law and doing a full-blown search for them using all the resources at the government's disposal. And if they're really guilty, make them pay the expenses.
I'm simply opposed to people being labeled guilty and humiliated (and, in many cases, probably losing their jobs) at the discretion of a system that operates outside the legal system.
>
>Again, if they KNEW where the ncp was, they would be
>collecting child support. Kind of hard to enforce a court
>order when you don't know where the person is.
I asked this question once before and you refused to answer it: How many people who owe child support are missing and no one knows where they are AFTER MAKING A SUBSTANTIAL EFFORT to find them. The majority of ones I've heard about, the effort to find them was cursory, at best.
>
>Which is the "witch hunt" comes in. Their face is on a pizza
>box. Someone who knows where they are just may report them.
>Then they can enforce the court order.
>
>BTW, this "witch hunt" is also used in wanted posters of
>people who are suspects in crimes. Are you saying that we
>should eliminate that since the person on poster has not been
>contacted?
The people on those wanted posters have been identified through the court system. They have invariably been convicted or indicted but failed to show up for trial. The court system has adequate safeguards for wrongfully listing someone on wanted posters. Your system does not.
I think quite a few of you are "reaching" as to why this is such a bad idea. I don't know about other states but in WA if you can't pay child support legitimately, your disabled etc...then they will reduce it to $25 per month. No need to be a deadbeat if you have a legit reason for not affording a "real" support payment.
I know of a few "deadbeats" and it's not that they can't afford CS but that they'd have to give up cigarettes and other important things that they just aren't willing to give up. There is NO excuse for not paying support. If a CP were to say "sorry I just don't have enough $ to feed you kids this month" they'd be arrested for neglect. Why should it be any different for a NCP. CP can't just say I couldn't afford it this month. It's not an option and it shouldn't be for a NCP either.
I say round'em up anyway you can!
>I think quite a few of you are "reaching" as to why this is
>such a bad idea. I don't know about other states but in WA if
>you can't pay child support legitimately, your disabled
>etc...then they will reduce it to $25 per month. No need to
>be a deadbeat if you have a legit reason for not affording a
>"real" support payment.
>
>I know of a few "deadbeats" and it's not that they can't
>afford CS but that they'd have to give up cigarettes and other
>important things that they just aren't willing to give up.
>There is NO excuse for not paying support. If a CP were to
>say "sorry I just don't have enough $ to feed you kids this
>month" they'd be arrested for neglect. Why should it be any
>different for a NCP. CP can't just say I couldn't afford it
>this month. It's not an option and it shouldn't be for a NCP
>either.
>
>I say round'em up anyway you can!
I don't have any problem with rounding up deadbeats. There's a judicial system in place for that. Track them down, attach their wages, etc. Send a private detective. Most people can be tracked by their spending if you try hard enough.
The difference is that in the case of the judicial system, the person gets to tell their side of the story and explain why the CS agency might be in error. In this pizza box system, a person is guilty as soon as the CS agency says they're guilty and they don't have a chance to defend themselves. In some cases, they could lose their job over an error in the CS agency.
I just happen to think that's just plain wrong - and I don't think that's reaching.
Yes, you're right, most states will reduce your child support if you cannot pay legitimately. The problem is that it can take months for that to happen, and by then you're in arrears. The system isn't perfect, which is why safegaurds ARE necessary.
There are plenty of government programs out there for people who find themselves in a tough spot and can't put food on the table. You can go to the food bank, you can get food stamps. No one gives you "child support stamps". You either pay or be labeled as a deadbeat and face criminal prosecution. If the NCP and CP were still married and someone lost their income, what would they do? Why should it be any different when there's a divorce? Why are we dehumaizing NCP's? No one seems to care what a NCP's situation is - they're regarded as wallets and nothing else in many cases.
I am lucky enough to never have been in a position like this, and hopefully I never will. But I can see how easily things like this can happen. I agree that there's no excuse for not supporting your children. I disagree with the pizza boxes.
In our case we were ordered to pay arrears, did so for 5 years - cash - every Friday to the courthouse, but because the CS division did not like the court order they froze all our bank accounts and retirement plans and forced a sale on retirment to get all arrears in full. Now, how does this work? A Judge signs a court order that has been followed to the penny for 5 years, then the CS division can come along and over ride a court order -tat has been in place adn followed - now this sounds to me like a potnetial pizza box picture even though we followed the courts order. (BTW arrears were accumulated because of job loss, then it took the judge 3 and 1/2 years to make an order for CS) And just food for thought here, my Ex was not ordered to pay one dime of cs to his three kids when I divored him 12 years ago.
They know where my son's exgf lives. They contact her, she says she is getting a doctor note for the illness of the week, she calls them and says it will be another week because the info on the note was wrong. The deadline passes. Nothing is done (that we know of). She knows she is facing license suspension and/or MORE jail time (she spent a whole month in jail last summer).
She is now over 11 grand in arrears. After jail last year she worked for a few months while they garnished her. Then quit. They wait from last November till now to do anything. If they are. Enforcement? Ha.
She is not officially a "deadbeat" cause they have an address for her.
>They know where my son's exgf lives. They contact her, she
>says she is getting a doctor note for the illness of the week,
>she calls them and says it will be another week because the
>info on the note was wrong. The deadline passes. Nothing is
>done (that we know of). She knows she is facing license
>suspension and/or MORE jail time (she spent a whole month in
>jail last summer).
>
>She is now over 11 grand in arrears. After jail last year she
>worked for a few months while they garnished her. Then quit.
>They wait from last November till now to do anything. If they
>are. Enforcement? Ha.
They already threw her in jail and garnished her. What do you want them to do - harvest her kidneys?
>
>She is not officially a "deadbeat" cause they have an address
>for her.
If she's willing to spend time in jail, then having her face on a pizza box wouldn't matter to her - which is why I don't think this proposal would do any good.
Since they know where she is, the legal solution (where the person has the right to defend themselves) makes more sense than a one-sided attack (putting them on pizza boxes).
>In our case we were ordered to pay arrears, did so for 5
>years - cash - every Friday to the courthouse, but because the
>CS division did not like the court order they froze all our
>bank accounts and retirement plans and forced a sale on
>retirment to get all arrears in full. Now, how does this
>work? A Judge signs a court order that has been followed to
>the penny for 5 years, then the CS division can come along and
>over ride a court order -tat has been in place adn followed -
>now this sounds to me like a potnetial pizza box picture even
>though we followed the courts order. (BTW arrears were
>accumulated because of job loss, then it took the judge 3 and
>1/2 years to make an order for CS) And just food for thought
>here, my Ex was not ordered to pay one dime of cs to his three
>kids when I divored him 12 years ago.
Exactly. That kind of story is far too common for me to feel comfortable with CS being able to notify the world that they believe someone is a deadbeat.
>They already threw her in jail and garnished her. What do you
>want them to do - harvest her kidneys?
No, she's such a hypochondriac, she's already had a bunch of stuff removed. Not her kidneys tho...
>If she's willing to spend time in jail, then having her face
>on a pizza box wouldn't matter to her - which is why I don't
>think this proposal would do any good.
I agree.
>Since they know where she is, the legal solution (where the
>person has the right to defend themselves) makes more sense
>than a one-sided attack (putting them on pizza boxes).
I agree with this too. If only CSEA would pursue the legal route. They say they are...but my son has not gotten any notice of a court hearing yet. Maybe she did come up with a doctor note. Then they can drag things out another few months. Court said there was no reason she couldn't work last year. They claim to be un-biased...but if my son was the one paying, they would act swiftly.
I wish I knew how to make parents (and I use that term loosely with her) get, and keep, a job.
So out of curiousity, my DH's situation, do you think that's reaching? (My post is a few up labeled "It's a bad idea".) My DH could have been labeled a deadbeat, when he was keeping his child half the time (at least) and making sure that his child needed (and wanted) for nothing.
The pizza box thing could be a good idea, and I think the people behind it have good intentions. But I think it will actually end up doing more harm than good. Like others have mentioned, there will be people posted on there that shouldn't be, and kids that will be embarassed.
Does anyone know the criteria that's been set up for what "qualifies" to get their picture on the pizza box? I'm curious to see how they define deadbeat, and what they use to determine who is a deadbeat before they post the picture.
In VA they list the "most wanted child support evaders" on the DCSE website. A quick check shows there are 17 people on the list. Of those 17 people there are 2 retail stockers, 2 waiters, 2 "restaurant workers", 3 construction laborers, 1 mover, and one security guard.
Of those 17 people, 11 would probably qualify as low income in our area - where the cost of living is 106% of the national average. That's 65%. Granted, this is a small sample - but it certainly speaks to the theory that most people considered "deadbeat dads" don't fit the perception of high income wage earners who refuse to pay when they have ample resources. More likely, these are people who live from paycheck to paycheck, and one bump in the road can throw them into a financial tailspin. Couple that with the fact that these guys are more than likely not educated, and probably have no idea how to manuever through the court system.
These are the people the state of Virginia deems "most wanted"? A waiter, a cook, a stockboy?
Just something to consider before hastening to condemn someone as a "deadbeat dad".
>In VA they list the "most wanted child support evaders" on
>the DCSE website. A quick check shows there are 17 people on
>the list. Of those 17 people there are 2 retail stockers, 2
>waiters, 2 "restaurant workers", 3 construction laborers, 1
>mover, and one security guard.
>
>Of those 17 people, 11 would probably qualify as low income in
>our area - where the cost of living is 106% of the national
>average. That's 65%. Granted, this is a small sample - but
>it certainly speaks to the theory that most people considered
>"deadbeat dads" don't fit the perception of high income wage
>earners who refuse to pay when they have ample resources.
>More likely, these are people who live from paycheck to
>paycheck, and one bump in the road can throw them into a
>financial tailspin. Couple that with the fact that these guys
>are more than likely not educated, and probably have no idea
>how to manuever through the court system.
>
>These are the people the state of Virginia deems "most
>wanted"? A waiter, a cook, a stockboy?
>
>Just something to consider before hastening to condemn someone
>as a "deadbeat dad".
I wonder what VA hopes to gain. If they know what the people do for a living, why aren't they spending their money going after them rather than wasting money making posters.
As I said, it's just a feel-good game to hide the fact that they're incompetent at collecting what they should be collecting.
NM
A better debate that I had with Ms. Brown was on WCCO radio and appears at
http://www.hjlawfirm.com/newsroom/podcasts/Pizza%20Box.mp3 or at
http://www.nvo.com/beaulier/deadbeatfathersonpizzaboxes/
As described in the article at the url (http://www.glennsacks.com/ohio_pizza_box.htm), the issue is not what might happen in general if 'deadbeats' had their faces on pizza boxes, but rather what is happening now. A few relevant observations include:
1. The people targeted are specifically those who don't have
resources. Specifically, "Three roofers, two construction
workers, a musician and four men with no known occupations".
As Glenn Sacks observes: "That Butler County was unable to
come up with even one alleged "deadbeat" who has an
education or a middle-class job might give public officials less
zealous than Brown and Cullen some pause."
2. Although in debate they made a point that they included in
their deadbeat rolls 63 "deadbeat moms", not a single female
was put on a pizza box. This defies random chance and
suggests that the campaign target not only the poor, but
specifically poor dads (never moms).
3. At no point in either the pizza boxes or the ensuing debate
have I seen a thoughtful recognition of the impact of seeing
the face of one's dad displayed on a pizza box. This is hardly
a hypothetical question -- there are kids out here right now
who have to have seen their father's face on a pizza box.
I think their feelings should count and I don't think their
voices have been heard.
Targeting poor kids by stiSLURPizing them in front of their peers is nothing short of shameful. And let us not miss the point, this is done in complete disregard of the kids' best interests and feelings for the sole purpose of pushing an anti-father agenda (otherwise it might be able to catch at least one female or even at least one father who has a good-paying job).
>As described in the article at the url
>(http://www.glennsacks.com/ohio_pizza_box.htm), the issue is
>not what might happen in general if 'deadbeats' had their
>faces on pizza boxes, but rather what is happening now. A few
>relevant observations include:
>
>1. The people targeted are specifically those who don't have
> resources. Specifically, "Three roofers, two
>construction
> workers, a musician and four men with no known
>occupations".
You listed jobs that can and have paid under the table. Which would make it look like the ncp has no known occupation.
> As Glenn Sacks observes: "That Butler County was unable
>to
> come up with even one alleged "deadbeat" who has an
> education or a middle-class job might give public
>officials less
> zealous than Brown and Cullen some pause."
>
>2. Although in debate they made a point that they included in
>
> their deadbeat rolls 63 "deadbeat moms", not a single
>female
> was put on a pizza box. This defies random chance and
> suggests that the campaign target not only the poor, but
>
> specifically poor dads (never moms).
I think deadbeat moms should be on the pizza boxes.
>
>3. At no point in either the pizza boxes or the ensuing
>debate
> have I seen a thoughtful recognition of the impact of
>seeing
> the face of one's dad displayed on a pizza box. This is
>hardly
> a hypothetical question -- there are kids out here right
>now
> who have to have seen their father's face on a pizza
>box.
> I think their feelings should count and I don't think
>their
> voices have been heard.
Okay, here is my true life example:
My parents divorced when I was 14. My father is an abusive alcoholic who rarely paid his child support. He always worked. And all he was ordered to pay was $300 a month for FIVE children. This was back before the time that child support was garnished or enforcement was even taken seriously. I was poor. I only had one pair of pants that I had to keep mending to wear. I was too embarassed to get the free lunch at school, so I went without. And, yes, my mom did work. But she met my dad when she was 18 and still in high school. He encouraged her to drop out of school (btw, he is 20 years older than her). This way, she would be completely dependent on him.
Do you really think I would have cared if my father's picture was on a pizza box if it meant that he would pay his child support?
I was more embarassed by his not paying his child support.
>
>Targeting poor kids by stiSLURPizing them in front of their
>peers is nothing short of shameful. And let us not miss the
>point, this is done in complete disregard of the kids' best
>interests and feelings for the sole purpose of pushing an
>anti-father agenda (otherwise it might be able to catch at
>least one female or even at least one father who has a
>good-paying job).
It isn't an anti-father agenda. It is a pro-pay your child support agenda.
And as a child with a deadbeat dad, I wouldn't have been stiSLURPized by having his picture on a pizza box. His lack of paying child support was what made my childhood embarassing.
You guys are only looking at this with one perspective and trying to project how YOU would feel onto children.
And, yes, some children would be stiSLURPized by a picture on the pizza box. And some children would benefit from a picture on the box if it makes the ncp pay child support.
>
>Okay, here is my true life example:
>
>My parents divorced when I was 14. My father is an abusive
>alcoholic who rarely paid his child support. He always
>worked. And all he was ordered to pay was $300 a month for
>FIVE children. This was back before the time that child
>support was garnished or enforcement was even taken seriously.
> I was poor. I only had one pair of pants that I had to keep
>mending to wear. I was too embarassed to get the free lunch
>at school, so I went without. And, yes, my mom did work. But
>she met my dad when she was 18 and still in high school. He
>encouraged her to drop out of school (btw, he is 20 years
>older than her). This way, she would be completely dependent
>on him.
>
>Do you really think I would have cared if my father's picture
>was on a pizza box if it meant that he would pay his child
>support?
>
>I was more embarassed by his not paying his child support.
>
Did they know where your father was? If so, why would they need to put his picture on a pizza box. As you've stated, they didn't enforce child support rigorously back then.
The answer is to enforce child support - not to create silly, abusive programs.
So far, you haven't given one argument to refute the arguments given above:
1. There is too much room for discretion by CSE - including wrongfully labelling people deadbeats (a couple of examples have been provided).
2. It won't collect any money - it's a publicity gimmick to make it look like they're doing something.
3. If they have the money for this program, it would better be spent on enforcement and collection.
4. People have a right to defend themselves. If they don't know where the 'deadbeat' is, that person can't defend himself. If they do know where he is, then they should go after him with legal means.
5. There's a great deal of potential for harming the kid - many kids do care about their parents and WOULD be hurt to see their father labeled a deadbeat. Furthermore, what if the father has died and appears on the pizza box? That would be immensely harmful.
Basically, your sob story makes good press, but doesn't address any of the real issues.
I am at a loss for words from this post, that you would be willing to sacrifice the majority of childrens mental state for "some" that would in your eyes benefit.......................
There is no win in this situation, only hurt, pain and embarassment............at many levels and the cost is not money. Think of the mental states of eveyone involved.
>
>>
>>Okay, here is my true life example:
>>
>>My parents divorced when I was 14. My father is an abusive
>>alcoholic who rarely paid his child support. He always
>>worked. And all he was ordered to pay was $300 a month for
>>FIVE children. This was back before the time that child
>>support was garnished or enforcement was even taken
>seriously.
>> I was poor. I only had one pair of pants that I had to
>keep
>>mending to wear. I was too embarassed to get the free lunch
>>at school, so I went without. And, yes, my mom did work.
>But
>>she met my dad when she was 18 and still in high school. He
>>encouraged her to drop out of school (btw, he is 20 years
>>older than her). This way, she would be completely
>dependent
>>on him.
>>
>>Do you really think I would have cared if my father's
>picture
>>was on a pizza box if it meant that he would pay his child
>>support?
>>
>>I was more embarassed by his not paying his child support.
>>
>
>Did they know where your father was? If so, why would they
>need to put his picture on a pizza box. As you've stated, they
>didn't enforce child support rigorously back then.
>
>The answer is to enforce child support - not to create silly,
>abusive programs.
>
>So far, you haven't given one argument to refute the arguments
>given above:
>1. There is too much room for discretion by CSE - including
>wrongfully labelling people deadbeats (a couple of examples
>have been provided).
>2. It won't collect any money - it's a publicity gimmick to
>make it look like they're doing something.
>3. If they have the money for this program, it would better be
>spent on enforcement and collection.
>4. People have a right to defend themselves. If they don't
>know where the 'deadbeat' is, that person can't defend
>himself. If they do know where he is, then they should go
>after him with legal means.
>5. There's a great deal of potential for harming the kid -
>many kids do care about their parents and WOULD be hurt to see
>their father labeled a deadbeat. Furthermore, what if the
>father has died and appears on the pizza box? That would be
>immensely harmful.
>
>Basically, your sob story makes good press, but doesn't
>address any of the real issues.
One of the issues that was raised against this program was that it would stiSLURPize the children.
I do believe that I have proven that it won't stiSLURPize all children, as was claimed.
My father was around, he just didn't pay his child support. This was before automatic wage garnishment and before they had any laws like they have now.
I like the pizza box idea for the simple reason that it may actually help a child.
I am sorry that you have such a problem with the government trying to find parents who aren't paying their child support. But it needs to be done.
>>
>>>
>>>Okay, here is my true life example:
>>>
>>>My parents divorced when I was 14. My father is an abusive
>>>alcoholic who rarely paid his child support. He always
>>>worked. And all he was ordered to pay was $300 a month for
>>>FIVE children. This was back before the time that child
>>>support was garnished or enforcement was even taken
>>seriously.
>>> I was poor. I only had one pair of pants that I had to
>>keep
>>>mending to wear. I was too embarassed to get the free
>lunch
>>>at school, so I went without. And, yes, my mom did work.
>>But
>>>she met my dad when she was 18 and still in high school.
>He
>>>encouraged her to drop out of school (btw, he is 20 years
>>>older than her). This way, she would be completely
>>dependent
>>>on him.
>>>
>>>Do you really think I would have cared if my father's
>>picture
>>>was on a pizza box if it meant that he would pay his child
>>>support?
>>>
>>>I was more embarassed by his not paying his child support.
>
>>>
>>
>>Did they know where your father was? If so, why would they
>>need to put his picture on a pizza box. As you've stated,
>they
>>didn't enforce child support rigorously back then.
>>
>>The answer is to enforce child support - not to create
>silly,
>>abusive programs.
>>
>>So far, you haven't given one argument to refute the
>arguments
>>given above:
>>1. There is too much room for discretion by CSE - including
>>wrongfully labelling people deadbeats (a couple of examples
>>have been provided).
>>2. It won't collect any money - it's a publicity gimmick to
>>make it look like they're doing something.
>>3. If they have the money for this program, it would better
>be
>>spent on enforcement and collection.
>>4. People have a right to defend themselves. If they don't
>>know where the 'deadbeat' is, that person can't defend
>>himself. If they do know where he is, then they should go
>>after him with legal means.
>>5. There's a great deal of potential for harming the kid -
>>many kids do care about their parents and WOULD be hurt to
>see
>>their father labeled a deadbeat. Furthermore, what if the
>>father has died and appears on the pizza box? That would be
>>immensely harmful.
>>
>>Basically, your sob story makes good press, but doesn't
>>address any of the real issues.
>
>One of the issues that was raised against this program was
>that it would stiSLURPize the children.
Nice strawman argument. No one ever claimed it would stiSLURPize ALL children. Do you think it's OK to stiSLURPize some children just because there are others who don't care?
>
>I do believe that I have proven that it won't stiSLURPize all
>children, as was claimed.
No one claimed that.
>
>My father was around, he just didn't pay his child support.
>This was before automatic wage garnishment and before they had
>any laws like they have now.
So you're basing your argument for pizza box pictures on the basis of a situation which no longer exisits.
>
>I like the pizza box idea for the simple reason that it may
>actually help a child.
You STILL haven't answered the question. HOW Is it going to help?
If you really want to find someone you can find them without putting their picture on pizza boxes.
>
>I am sorry that you have such a problem with the government
>trying to find parents who aren't paying their child support.
>But it needs to be done.
It's obvious that you've lost the argument by the fact that you keep making things up and pretending someone said them. I've argued strongly that the government SHOULD aggressively pursue people who don't pay their support. And they should try to find them. I just don't believe that pizza boxes is the way to go - for all the reasons I've given --- NONE of which you've responded to.
"I am sorry that you have such a problem with the government trying to find parents who aren't paying their child support. But it needs to be done."
Then let the Gov't do their job and not rely upon local pizzerias to do it for them.
>"I am sorry that you have such a problem with the government
>trying to find parents who aren't paying their child support.
>But it needs to be done."
>
>Then let the Gov't do their job and not rely upon local
>pizzerias to do it for them.
Good comment.