Messages

>Absolutely. I agree completely with that.
>
>However, I do not believe that justifies scrapping the system
>- which is what has been proposed.

Yes this link does propose that but that wasn't what I was getting at just that it states as reasons to scrap it and there are reasons.

>
>Instead, I think a couple of things should happen:
>
>1. Wherever possible, people should be paying their child
>support directly. If that happened 100% of the time, there's
>be no need for CSE. That's clearly never going to happen, but
>the more often people pay directly, the less need for CSE.
 
I absolutly agree with that CSE should only be used for persons who are not willing to pay, not for people who are doing the responcible thing and are compliant with court orders. However many judges out there automaticly send it to CSE with out any question as to whether or not the parent will pay and before the NCP has even defaulted on payments. Another goodie was when my husband died I got a packet from CSE to fill out because I was trying to get a medical card for my children. They actually expected me to fill it out with a death cert on file. Waste of paper and time yep! In order to get the medical card I actually had to fill it out you should of seen how I filled out "last known address" Good thing I have a sence of humor and the receiver of the paper said to me that was the funniest form he has read in a long time (seriously I put currently half his body is on the hill side at (his dad's farms address) and the other half is in the back of my steps son closet at (step sons address)

>2. When people CHOOSE to use CSE for whatever reason (and,
>yes, there are very good reasons on both sides), they need to
>be aware that there's a cost for doing so.

I also agree with this and I believe the person causing the problem should have to pay part of this fee not all something like a yearly flat rate of a reasonable ammount like say mom has the kids dad wont pay he should have to pay the yearly service fee in addition to the support however if he can prove he is paying and mom is just being a pain she should have to pay.

>3. Of course, like any government (or private, for that
>matter) program, there's waste. An effort should be made to
>reduce the waste in ANY program. In this case, there are a
>number of incompetent people and efforts should be made to
>have them removed from CSE, for example.

I 100% agree like in any job if you screw up several times you'll get fired. If you can't do the job your suppose to do find one you can.

>The system can be improved - no doubt. That doesn't mean that
>it's worthless or unnecessary - as some have proposed.

Just to clarify my position is not that I believe the system is totally worthless, I believe it is flawed, over used, and has much human error causing problems for all. Completely shut down, no, just modified on several levels and regulated better. It needs more efficency like most government programs in the social area. I guess I'm middle of the road as far as this program goes. Yes it works for some yes it hurts some. One could make the same argument about welfare, food stamps, medicaid, etc etc.

can you post the link to this. I'd like to read more.

On a side note after reading this I got this picture in my head sort of like a money truck fresh from a bank pick up getting hit on the highway and everyone stopping to catch the money as it floats through the air trying to get a hand full. I was picturing the mess of people, the traffic back up, and people getting hit by traffic and hurt. What I mean is everyone is trying to get a piece of the pie and some are people who should not be profiting from this at all. Yes the workers who collect should have a paycheck for doing thier job, but how many are getting paid for nothing... makes me wonder.

>I guess it is a little off topic, but as a public accountant
>who has audited government agencies, I can tell you that there
>is a lot of waste. I think every dollar spend by goverment
>agencies should be scrutinized to make sure the public is
>getting everything they are paying for. I am a liberal person
>and believe in social services, but believing in them and
>believing in how many of them are run are two totally seperate
>things.


That was kinda the point I was trying to make. There is too much waste large portions of money intended to go to one place is going towards others. It is not that the system can't work, it can and in some situations does but not always. Your never going to get any social program or any other program for that matter to have a 100% success rate and there are always improvements to be made. Really on paper there is little wrong with the system it is in the process of trying to make it work that things don't get carried out as it should, mistakes are made, people get hurt and so do children. If they used all the money they wasted and pissed away to regulate the system the results would be better all the way around. The main problem with the system is human error, lazyness, and people trying to get one over on the system. I too hold your position of I "believe in social services, but believing in them and
believing in how many of them are run are two totally seperate
things."

I'm very new here. I was starting to think this is normal here. Is it not? I actually came to this board to gather info. I've been a second wife once and am about to be come one again. I did not encounter the problems I'm having now with the first situation, they worked with eachother on everything for the kids. I wanted to see the problems from others prespective to get a better grasp on the situation. I'm here researching opinion on the system to better understand it. I can tell you I don't view the board as "a hostile silly environment" I see it as having some hostile silly people but most seem helpful and willing to share opinion. As far as "...would not expect any real support" the verdict is still out on that one. I can tell you I already know who's posts to ignore and whose to pay close attention to.

http://www.nfja.org/positionstatement/childsupportbudgetcuts.shtml

This goes with the last topic but is just slightly different. Loaded with fact, stats, and valueble info.

>>Prove it doesn't.
>
>I've already provided evidence that the system works most of
>the time.
>
>So where's your evidence that it doesn't (other than a
>blatantly biased poll which got 10 votes in a self-selected
>group of people having problems out of 50 million or so
>families affected)?


Isn't what your evidence was a blantantly biased collection of data based on a group of people who are recieving funds collected by the agency that calculated the stats?? If the actual families were asked "So your receiving child support do you think your getting the correct amount or a fair amount?" Do you seriously believe the same % of people who the system is on paper is "working" for would say yes?? I for one doubt it. Do you think if the people who owed back support were asked "So why do you owe back support?" Some of them at least would say "Because I cannot afford to pay." Yes some would probably say "Cause I'm just not going to pay it" Most want to support thier children but life happens and they just simply can't and the child support agencies simply veiw these same people and lump them in with the "dead beats" and are just as hostile towards them as they would be to somebody who just won't pay for thier own selfish reasons.

I believe if he is nowhere to be found and is not providing any support and for at least 6 months you have been this child "father" you have several options. go to //www.childwelfare.gov look up adoption info. Also I know my state had in WV Code 49 not sure which subsection but It states if a father has abandoned a child for 6 months his rights can be terminated to that child leaving the mother as the full legal gardian and that child is free for adoption. Basically what that means is bio dad has no legal rights to the child and mom has all legal custody so if she wanted to let her current husband adopt the courts will allow that. You may very well have to first find your states code on child wefare scan it for a simular law then work on having the bio dad's rights terminated according to code then adopt. A lawyer would know how to do that. In some states you have to take an add out in the paper to try to find him first. Good luck!

>>Prove it doesn't.
>
>I've already provided evidence that the system works most of
>the time.
>
>So where's your evidence that it doesn't (other than a
>blatantly biased poll which got 10 votes in a self-selected
>group of people having problems out of 50 million or so
>families affected)?


Isn't what your evidence was a blantantly biased collection of data based on a group of people who are recieving funds collected by the agency that calculated the stats?? If the actual families were asked "So your receiving child support do you think your getting the correct amount or a fair amount?" Do you seriously believe the same % of people who the system is on paper is "working" for would say yes?? I for one doubt it. Do you think if the people who owed back support were asked "So why do you owe back support?" Some of them at least would say "Because I cannot afford to pay." Yes some would probably say "Cause I'm just not going to pay it" Most want to support thier children but life happens and they just simply can't and the child support agencies simply veiw these same people and lump them in with the "dead beats" and are just as hostile towards them as they would be to somebody who just won't pay for thier own selfish reasons.

I believe if he is nowhere to be found and is not providing any support and for at least 6 months you have been this child "father" you have several options. go to //www.childwelfare.gov look up adoption info. Also I know my state had in WV Code 49 not sure which subsection but It states if a father has abandoned a child for 6 months his rights can be terminated to that child leaving the mother as the full legal gardian and that child is free for adoption. Basically what that means is bio dad has no legal rights to the child and mom has all legal custody so if she wanted to let her current husband adopt the courts will allow that. You may very well have to first find your states code on child wefare scan it for a simular law then work on having the bio dad's rights terminated according to code then adopt. A lawyer would know how to do that. In some states you have to take an add out in the paper to try to find him first. Good luck!

>>One point that goes in hand with that Baby is, when a NCP
>is
>>made an obligor by a court, agency, employee of the state,
>in
>>many times at a high amount, such person is therefor made to
>>get a higher paying job, or even another job, which in turn
>is
>>used against said individual to reduce visatation which is
>>directly correlated to ones support, which then is raised
>>again for supposed lack of time with said child.
>
>
>And I"m STILL waiting for you to provide evidence that this
>happens with any reasonable frequency.
>
>As it is, I'm the only one who has provided ANY factual
>evidence.


Are you saying that IF a NCP goes out and gets a "high paying job" or "another job" and that person income goes up the support obligation remains the same?

Also as I pointed out you provided factual evidence to a question not asked here. You provided stats to the fact that child support is being paid period not that is is a fair amount or that the "system is working" for well anybody really. Some CP's are probably getting less than they are due and some NCP's are probably paying more than they should. There isn't going to be stats on what is asked here because nobody is going to admit they are screwing over the system in thier favor except the people who are being screwed over. My boyfriend is in your 89% of people the gov is saying the system works for is it really working for him? NO! But because he is paying this excess amount on time and not with holding funds he is counted as such.