DCSE has infuriated me!

[dipper]

My exhusband moved from VA to NC years ago.  This has made child support collection difficult at times, as they cannot serve a summons in NC from VA.  (unless you hire someone privately)  Okay, the past two years, my ex has only paid sporadically and very little then.  In November 2004, DCSE in VA asked NC to take enforcement jurisdiction.  I was told that NC was going to court on Feb 28, 2005 to take jurisdiction.  

After that time, when I would call DCSE, they said NC was now the enforcer. ( I sent numerous letters as well).  They would not give me a contact number for NC.  I turned in my ex's employer's address and they would forward...and nothing.  November, 2005, VA sent a request to NC to send out a wage withholding as they had found ex's new employer.  

I finally got tired of the run around and this year, I found a main address for NC DCSE and sent a letter.  I got a reply today.

I am furious - NC states that my ex was not properly served and did not appear in Feb, 2005........and they could not take jurisdiction.  They notified VA and requested registration info and updated arrears and payment info.  They did not receive it and CLOSED the case on March 7, 2005.   They did send VA word that if they wanted them to reopen, they needed to send the requested information.  It was never done.

This means that for an entire year, VA has lied to me!  WTF?  I am going to write everyone with any pull in this state until someone gives me an answer as to why this crap happens.....give me a line and access to the information and I could put this *hit together.......

[Kent]

>> This means that for an entire year, VA has lied to me!

And you are surprised ?!?!?!?!?

GO GET 'EM!!!

Kent!

[dipper]

NO, not surprised really.  Though I had been buying the lies, thinking the problem was mainly NC.  

I already have my copies of the letter from NC ready to go....plan on complaining from the district manager up to the governor.....This is just crazy...

:)

[POC]

When CS laws become rebuttable and equitable, then I will lend my full support for tracking down obligors with arrearage. I know I'm not alone in that thought. I do recognize that is unfortunate for the few whose orders are just and appropriate. Unfortunately, the absence of a rebuttable basis to the guidelines makes it virtually impossible to determine if any particular case is just and appropriate. As such, child support reform is the horse that must be put in front of the cart of enforcement.

[cinb85]

for 14 years now.   They have lied to me on several occasions and have ignored court orders.  I have complained many times to their main office in Trenton, NJ and after several months, I finally get a response that my CSE office is doing everything they can for my case.  I have complained to the local assemblyman and finally got a response from him that my caseworker said that she is doing everything that she can for my CS case.

Good luck to you!!!  I hope that you are able to do something about them!!!

[dipper]

Not saying its all fair.  Is it?  No....my dh had one child full time, another half time, paid a joint bankruptcy, carried all health insurance, and had to pay child support because his bm chose not to work full time....Fair?  No...


My ex is a deadbeat and I dont care if that offends some.  He is a deadbeat because he rarely makes any attempt to see our children - I have them 100% of the time and I have all financial responsibility with that.  He was able to buy  his mommy something for Christmas but not even  a sticker for his own children.

Regardless of the fairness or not of the court system, he is still a deadbeat.  And employees at DCSE are getting PAID to find him and collect this support.  

[dipper]

I find it confusing that a subpoena for CS cannot cross state lines and be served by the police in that state.  

Guidelines for CS are not completely fair.....but, then the ways to avoid paying are all too easy.  Maybe there isnt a middle ground...the situation may be so enormous that there is no fixin......

Either way, the children's interests are not being met.

[POC]

If your definition of a deabeat is a parent who refuses to pony up for the needs of their child(ren) while in the care of the other parent, as well as their own, then I guess your ex is from what you described. However, that makes most CP's deadbeats too, because it is a very rare occurrence when CP's are willing to share the financial burden of their child(ren), while in the care of the other parent. Yet, they expect the same in return. They are perfectly willing to leave needs as basic as food, shelter, clothing, and transportation un-provided for, while not in their care. As if it were part of some sick plan, child support has become about parental designations, rather than meeting the needs of children.

[dipper]

There should be a middle ground, but from your words I dont sense any.  Yes, there are some deadbeat CP's.  However, if a parent CHOOSES not to see their own children....then at the very least they should help provide for that child in the other parent's home.  Now, if there is a 50/50 arrangement, then I dont believe anyone should receive support.  As you stated, if both parents are providing in their home, why should one get money from the other to do it.

When my ex does see our children, it is in his mother's home and she provides everything.  They have been to his home twice...and even then his mother took them, took food, and purchased everything while there...

Believe me, I am not putting down on someone who does for his children, but maybe not as I would like.  I even offered to drop support by 1/4 atleast.  He agreed and paid that twice.....we sent a letter to DCSE, which I typed and signed and sent on to him to do so.  Actually, I dont know if he did...but, I think so because not long after that I got a paper stating that either of us can request a review.  By that time, I was mad and decided let him ask from now on..

[POC]

I agree, in many instances there is a middle ground. But, when it comes to matters of principle, one should not be so quick to negotiate. You will never EVER hear me say that a parent should not help provide for the needs of their child. I'm not about mincing words either. BOTH parents should share the financial responsibility of their child, regardless of which parent the child happens to be with at any given time. If the child never resides with the NCP, then there is no need to provide for such time. That is fairly simple. I think all can agree to that. Since it is a moot issue, there is no need to bring it up.

Now, if the apportionment of CS monies does not account for time to be spent with the NCP, then it is kind of hard to say that the NCP doesn't want to spend time with the child. That would be like saying a parent who cannot afford to take their kid to Disney World does not want their kid to go to Disney World. In the case of CS, it is worse; it is like vilifying a parent for not taking their kid to Disney, while forcing them to pay for someone else's child to go to Disney. That is because, not only is the NCP not receiving any financial assistance from the CP, the CS order forces him to send money that could be used for the child's benefit at his home to the CP.

I'm happy to try to find some middle ground with you. If the NCP voluntarily or via court order does not see his child, then the CP should not spend any money to provide for the child at the NCP's residence. However, if the child spends 5 days per year at the NCP home, then the CP should pay her proportionate share of income towards the child's needs at the NCP home. Likewise, in such circumstances, the NCP should shoulder his proportionate share of the child's needs the other 360 days too. If the amount of time is 100 days, then she should share 100 days worth of expenses at the NCP home, he 265 days, and so on and so forth to where money is seamlessly apportioned between the parents to provide for the needs of their child(ren) across the time sharing and parental income distributions that are reality in today's society. Why should children be forced to settle for anything less than such? Isn't both parents sharing the expenses of their child 365 days per year what is best for children?