visitation with no child support?

[gemini3]

Father should swallow his pride, file for a modification if he can't find employment and own up to his responsibilites.

There are thousands of fathers out there who have lost jobs and income in this economy.  What they are finding is that, when you file for a modification, you could wait months before you get into court.  Meanwhile the arrearages are piling up, and the fathers stand the chance of facing jail time if they can't pay.  Then when you get to court many judges will deem the situation "temporary" and not change the order. 

It's not as black and white as you think.  And when the CP doesn't have money to pay the bills they can get food stamps and other types of public assistance.  There's no public assistance for men who lose their jobs and have to find a way to feed themselves and put a roof over their heads while maintaining CS payments that are more than they bring home in a month.

Again, I would bet that the CP in this case made the NCP out to be a less fit parent in the eyes of the court so that she had custody and he was relegated to 4 days a month with his child.  I feel that, if you're going to make a case like that, then you should be willing to accept the additional responsibility (financial and otherwise) that comes with it.  I'm sure the father in this case would love to have 50/50 custody, and in that case no money would need to change hands.  I bet the child would like to have more time with her dad.  But it's not really about that is it?  It's about the money.  No matter what you try to coat it with.

[Davy]

OH Gemini ... where have you been all my life.  Your husband is a very lucky man  !!! 

First, the OP never said this jerk is in hiding.  In fact just the oposite is true, he appears in court and for visitation pick-ups and drop-offs.  In addition, the OP said she did not like the child going to the father's house because she did not like the environment.   This yada yada yada (including "jerk" ) comes from the theatrics of another poster trying to justify and sway this tread away from the financial support of a child to the arrest of a parent. 

I've been in many FR "experience sharing" meetings.  It is safe to say that out of a group of 50 fathers MOST paid child support NO MATTER WHAT in HOPES of the child (ren) actually received and benefitted from the support.  Afterall we had supported our children IN ALL WAYS ALL THEIR LIFE.  MOST believed the mother was doing the right thing ... and MOST did.

Many among these child support paying believers were constantly denied court ordered access to their children and their children to them.  Many had to endure false arrests based on false accusations when they went to VISIT (for heaven's sake) their children and HOPE their hidden microcassets recorders did not get damaged in the take-downs.  Still others didn't even know where their children were located and the state cashed and hoarded their child support payments when they were returned undeliverable.  Of course, they still were required to pay.

Back to the 50 or so fathers in the FR experience sharing meetings.  A very small handful of fathers were outspoken and adamantly against paying CS. They disrupted every meeting and at times came to near blows ... nobody here would have wanted to be there .... yada, yada yada.  The rest of us functioned from a child advocate theme and coached/supported others likewise.  Personally, I purposed, promoted and encouraged female participation which spread to other FR (TFER)organizations in Tx in the 80's... 


There are many many other problems in these corrupt systems and particularly CSE and there have been for a long time.  The bottom line ...
there are other rational  encouragements available (or could be) to get a parent to support a child in all ways.  The arrest/incarceration of a parent is simply a feminist power and control mechanism that has very little to do with the financial support of a child. 

I really don't think I let the cat out of the bag.  Please just everybody just focus on children.  Let's stop the brokeness before all we know is gone.

[CuriousMom]

I would think if this father wanted 50/50, he would be filing for that arrangement, fighting for more time with his child.  I didn't hear that in the original post or subsequent posts from this person.  It was all about the money for the father, whether he could pay or not. 

There are always 2 sides to every story - that includes everyone in this site.  All we hear is the side being posted and how awful the other parent is etc.  I personally think instead of those parents taking out what they feel is unjust of the system on the other parent, focus their frustration and advocate to those who run the family courts/CS.  Obviously with all of us in here, we're not alone.

I still feel it's not right to neglect your child support, but let someone be denied visitation it's a huge ordeal.  Both parents have been ordered to follow a standard, who is either parent to alter these standards on their own?  This type of parent is the one who ruins it for everyone - impacting those who as Davy said pay their child support, or at least make the attempt in good faith, and want to be involved. 

[Davy]

Yhanks Curious.

The OP was the sole-custody mother so 50/50 has not been an issue in this thread where arresting the father or jerk became the emphasis rather than non-payment or collecting CS.
Please be mindful the OP says "visitation but no CS".  Beautiful !  What does that really mean ?

Many fathers do not like the goverment interference in their relationship with their children and won't "ask" or "beg" especially after they have already been burnt by the bias and prejudice of the system which they consider a waste of time.   

I never fought with the mother.  I went after the system as much as I could and won .... not really everybody looses when the government is involved.  If this keeps up this child may end up fatherless, motherless or both.   

Hopefully, resolutions can be considered rather than bashing fathers on a child focused forum seeking equality for both parents.

Children need protection  !!

[superdad01]

This is truly a no win situation.

If the father is in jail your not gonna be getting support paid nor will the child spend time with the father.

I recall hearing that if you had a warrent and were pulled over with a child that they could not take you in... I could be wrong but I heard that somewhere... I don't know if it's true or not.

[Momfortwo]

Those are some strong words from someone who isn't involved in the situation.  What-if's don't amount to a hill of beans.  We could all make up hypothetical situations. 

There's nothing in any of the posts that give any indication that he's a bad father, or that the child needs protection from him.  In fact - he shows up every other week for his visitation.  If I had to put my money on something I would say that there are issues between the mother and father, not between the child and the father. 

But part of being a good parent is FINANCIALLY supporting your child.  And not putting them at risk of seeing you arrested while they are with you.

Saying that there are issues between the mother and father is an understatement.  He isn't paying his child support.  He isn't going to court to modify the child support.  He isn't letting the CP know his address so that she will know where the child is (btw, this is something that a court can order the ncp to provide to the cp.  And has in other cases).  The ncp isn't letting the courts know his address. 

The mother needs to make sure that the child isn't with the NCP when he is arrested.  And the only way she can do that is to make arrangements for the child to be elsewhere when the NCP, who has an arrest warrent out on him for contempt because of his actions, comes to pick the child up.  And let the cops know where he will be. 

[MomofTwo]

Someone who is out of work or struggling and is not being vindictive about child support STILL pays something.   They pay what they can, they do what they can to help support THEIR children even if it is not the ordered amount.    Nowhere did it say he lost his job or was struggling financially.   Jeez, I teach my kids every day "you make choices and for every choice you make, there are consequences - sometimes good, sometimes bad." It is his CHOICE not to support his child and for that choice, he should face whatever comes his way.   A guy who isn't paying child support and has a warrant out for his arrest hasn't paid in quite some time.  Putting him in jail because of it --- he wasn't paying before so putting him in jail is not a loss.  Every person knows the consequences of not supporting your children.  He knows what could happen, he is an adult and should face the consequences.  He CHOSE that.

[gemini3]

But part of being a good parent is FINANCIALLY supporting your child.  And not putting them at risk of seeing you arrested while they are with you.

By that logic any person who is in a two parent family and suddenly loses their income (either to lay-off's or for medical reasons, etc.), and has to rely on the other person's income to support the family, is a bad parent.   

Also by that logic any person who chooses to stay at home with their children, instead of work and provide financial support, is a bad parent.   

I don't buy that.  There is way more to being a parent than money.  Unfortunately in the system we have right now, that's all that NCP's are worth.  The money.

[Kitty C.]

And we have NO idea what the actual employment status of the NCP is, except for what we're being told by the CP.  He may be unemployed or being paid so little that he barely has enough to take care of himself.  I don't agree with the statement that all who are CO'd to pay CS will pay even a little if they are unemployed.  I don't see how, if they don't have ANY money coming in.

I'm sorry, but there are a lot of gaping holes in this situation.  The first red flag for me was in the original post when the CP insinuated that their main objective was to get the NCP arrested.  Yep, there is a tremendous amount of animosity, at least for the CP against the NCP.  And that's the second red flag.

Regardless, unless the NCP is wealthy and obviously hiding money to avoid paying CS, there is absolutely no reason to put someone in jail for non-payment.  Soc was adamantly against it, I remember, because he saw it as an equivalent to debtor's prison.  It's the only way to guarantee there won't be any CS payments made, which defeats the purpose altogether.

As for law enforcement, you can't change the fact that a warrant has already been issued. But I would give them more credit in the fact that they don't want the child present if they arrest the guy anymore than anyone else does. 

[Giggles]

This whole debate just proves that the current CS system is fundementally FLAWED!!

But...how to fix it? 

Some of my thoughts....The whole premis on "maintaining the lifestyle" in which the CS is based needs to be tossed!  I'm sorry, you cannot keep status quo support of 2 households on what was once one household!

All Custody orders should be 50/50...and NO CS Ordered....but for move aways and or other situations....

A CS order should only be "increased" if 1...both parties agree, 2....if a medical situation occurs or 3...the needs of the CHILD warrent the increase.

A CS order should only be "decreased" if 1.  Both parties agree, 2....if the NCP loses their job or has a significant PROVABLE income reduction.

ALL CS order should end at the age of 18....PERIOD

College should NOT be court ordered!

Instead of putting those who don't pay in jail, what about making them do community service?

Oh and MOST OF ALL...make it EQUAL!!

My DH just received paperwork stating BM is going for an UPWARD mod of CS.  WHY??  Because she's divorcing her current husband and needs all the $$ she can get her hands on...no problem.  Since SS is 17, she'll get 1 years worth and then DONE!  What's going to happen to her once the CS ends??  Not my problem!