Another Rick Badie Column

[Bolivar]

To bring attention to the Child Support problem please take 5 minutes and send an email.  The more publicity we get the better off our children will be.  Heck just a one liner email is better than nothing. :-)

Thanks,
Bolivar

====================================


Another Rick Badie Column


Rick has written several articles on subjects that support fathers and families.

YOUR responses determine the AJC's coverage on such subjects!
It is especially important to address the issues of child support and custody now that the legislative session in starting and the AJC will be sensing what its readers are interested in reading about.

Take a few moments to email a response to Rick so the AJC will know these types of articles are a subject of concern to their readers!
 
Be sure to thank Rick and give him your comments.
email him at [email protected]
 
Also, If you can help Tim find a job, email him by Clicking Here
or email him at [email protected]
Tim is experienced in the Information Technology field.
 
-------------------------------------------------------------


Noncustodial dad faces bottom line

By RICK BADIE
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 01/06/05

On Oct. 21, Timothy E. Meek was ordered to pay $500 a month in child support for his two daughters.

That same day, he was sentenced to 90 days in the Gwinnett County Detention Center for violating the conditions of his work-release program.
   

Pretty hard to hold down a job if you're locked up. Yet that was Meek's predicament the last two months of 2004, and the new year hasn't been much of an improvement.

"I need to find work — fast" said Meek, 47. "I'm scared to death."

Last summer, I wrote about Meek in a column on how noncustodial parents often get the shaft when it comes to child support. He or she typically pays the bulk of it, regardless of the custodial parent's earnings. The support amount is based on gross income — before taxes — with no consideration given for payroll deductions like health insurance.

And God help them if they have a second family or worse, lose their jobs. They must wait six months before they can petition the courts for a payment modification. Meanwhile, the unpaid support continues to accrue, which is part to blame for Meek's situation.

These are some of the issues a proposed bill would address in this year's General Assembly that convenes Monday. The legislation would change state rules that judges follow to set child support terms.

One supporter for change is Rep. Earl Ehrhart, a Republican from Powder Springs who likely will be chairman of the House Rules Committee. In past sessions, the divorced father of two has sponsored legislation to rework the state laws that govern child support allocations. He says current laws impoverish the noncustodial parent, especially if that person remarries.

Meek didn't remarry after his divorce in February 1997. But four years ago, when he lost a $72,000 job with BellSouth, he bottomed out. Today, life for Meek is no better than it was when I wrote about him in August.

Back then, he was in arrears to the tune of about $45,000. He was on a court-ordered work-release program, which allowed him to work at a Snellville Wal-Mart. He sold shotguns. But he says he lost that job because his nightly curfew prevented him from working a later shift, which his employer desired at one point.

The courts didn't learn of Meeks jobless state until the scheduled hearing on Oct. 21. That led to the 90-day jail sentence for "lying about having employment," court records show.

It's bad enough that Meek was ever incarcerated in the first place. At least his original punishment allowed him to begin making good on his debt. But to order him to pay child support, then toss him in jail with no conditions that allow him to seek or hold employment, is ludicrous.

And common.

"Many of these rulings where fathers are incarcerated for not paying child support are very punitive, and in Tim's case it's being taken to the nth degree," said Karen J. Wagner, a child advocate in Marietta.

"The laws work against families, and it's completely unfair."

On Dec. 2, Meek returned to Gwinnett County Superior Court for yet another hearing. The presiding judge seemed to get it. In order for Meek to pay child support, he had to work. In order to work, Meek couldn't remain jailed.

The judge ordered Meek back on work-release. He must find find a job, and he's looking — for anything.

"The bottom line is I need some money," Meek said. "And I need a lot of it."

• Rick Badie's column appears on Sundays, Tuesdays and Thursdays. He can be reached by e-mail at [email protected]

 

[olanna]

Maybe it's really early here, but where is Tim located?  I am a network engineer and some of the market has opened up here in CA...I also get leads for other parts of the country.

[lovebug]

I just spoke to my wifes father who is employed at this exact wal-mart. MY FIL knows him and his story well. This man was not fired because he could not work a later shift. He was fired because he was asked to mix paint in hardware while the hard ware person (there is only one person in hardware each shift) was at lunch. When he refused the assistant manage told mr.meeks that he needed to do the job he was asked to do or find another job that was more to his liking. Mr. Meeks clocked out and went home without telling anyone that he was leaving.  He left 5 hours early that day. The next day he returned and acted like nothing had happen. He was then fired for repeated insobordination.

My FIL told me that when this man started at wal-mart he made it clear that he was only working there because he had no other choice because the judge had made him find any job and he felt that he was too important/smart to work such an unworthy job.

My FIL talked to him several times about his child support problems and apparently the guy never, ever paid child support to his kid. And he seemed proud of it. He blamed the judge and his ex for all his problems and had the attitude that everyone owed him something.

Also, apparently this guy was not jailed for not paying support he was jailed because he was not working while he was required to be on a work release program. He made no attempt to find another job between when he was let go at Wal-mart and when he had to go back to court. In my FIL's opinion, this guys didn't want to work and seemed to think if he didn't work that he wouldn't have to pay support.

So it seems that this article does not exactly give the whole picture.