Deadbeat Parents on Pizza Boxes

[mistoffolees]

>
>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.

[mistoffolees]

>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.

[gemini3]

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.  

[Mamacass]

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?  

[Jade]

>
>>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.  

[Jade]

>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.  

[mistoffolees]

>
>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.

[mistoffolees]

>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).

[Jade]

>
>>
>>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?  

[gemini3]

$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?