visitation with no child support?

[CuriousMom]

Giggles it is totally flawed!  As in your case exactly, BM is financially greedy and is yet another parent who makes others look bad and pay the consequences.

I have to disagree however on the immediate awarding of 50/50.... and I know I'll catch all kinds of flack for that statement - but just from my personal experience over the past 6 months that would have been the absolute worst thing for my son.  Not saying down the road it would be terrible. 

My son's father has left him sit during his weekend with a double-ear infection numerous times, has neglected to feed him for 8+ hours .... and this was at age 3 1/2 months to present.  Sometimes I think these cases have to be examined a little more.

[Davy]

Kitty and Giggles....great posts.

OP said she didn't want to deny visitation ... she just want him arrested when he showed up.

That's classic.  It used to be "She cried and the judge wiped her tears with my checkbook".

* How about holding the receiver of CS accountable for the money received.  CS was never an issued because I never made it such.  Turns out her boyfreind used my CS to pay his CS and the rest went to their beer budget ... a case a day.  Kids tell me she would be visibility pissed when the CS arrived...she only wanted to use non-payment to have me arrested.  She never paid a dime when she became ncp.

No accountability is by far one of the biggest issues in the CS arena.  Many know the CS is not really used for the support of children (at least in some cases).

Note the daughter lives in a different state than the father.  uhmmm...

Here's a brief of an ONE arrest (Class B felony for "interference" with more physical abuse accusations) :

*) plain cothed detective approaches at garage upon arrival from work and we're chatting.

*) boys came out of the garage with a glass of ice tea and a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and politely asked me to take them to the library to meet some girls ... they thought I was talking to a neighbor

*) both boys (15 & 13) are bigger than me and dressed in muscle shirts

*) detective exclaimed "doesn't look like these boys are in any danger".  (No chit)

*) detective asked to go inside...looked like Mother Theresa lived there

*) detective said he was sorry he was going have to put be in cuffs and asked I had $1000 for bail .. I ask  him  to check cause it was suppose to be $100 ... he said he HOPE he didn't come here for $100 and wandered how I knew. He called to check and was frustrated and even more so as he put on the cuffs discovered I was a disabled veteran (Nam).

*) he asked if the older son could drive to come and pick me up ... I let him know he useta steal cars when he was with his mom...was 15 and did not have a license.  HE said OK .. come out and get your dad.  Neither boy flinched ... hell yal we'll do that.

*) it was kinda of a good ole boy moment as we all looked at each other before I tossed him the keys and said "no partying".  Boys are thinking ... dad's in jail ... we have the keys and the house and we're cruising around with a bunch of girls and then partying.  LIFE couldn't be better.  When the cat's away the mice do play.

The reason I post this is to let ya know this Divorce/Custody/CS is all a BIG FARCE WITH A LOT OF PAIN.

Some will not be happy until they are arresting the kids because they want to go with Dad. That is what happened to that 15 yr old and his older sister when he was 13.  LE said it was for their own protection.   

I AM VERY SERIOUS ... good people and parents HAVE to come together to STOP all this BS that has been going on for a very long time.

[CuriousMom]

Totally agree on the receiver being held accountable for using the money appropriately.  Children shouldn't be someone else's paycheck.

[Giggles]

Here's a CS horror story for you that just recently happened to my DH.  We moved from up north down to FL.  DH did the right thing and immediately registered his CS order...blah...blah...blah.

Well a mix up happened and they were taking DOUBLE CS out of him.  Got that fixed and miracle of miracles...he got a refund check back!!  WOW...I know!!

Ok...things are going along seemingly fine until he gets a summons for failure to pay CS....WTF???  So the date comes up, DH armed with all his pay stubs showing the CS deduction....gets in front of the Judge.  The judge looks at the record and gets a puzzled look.  Says "OK...you're here for failure to pay but....you've been paying and you have no arrears....do you have anything to say?"  then immediately says "don't say anything you won...case dismissed".  OK well and fine right...WRONG!  My DH still had to PAY the court costs!!  grrrr

Now CuriousMom...in instances where child neglect is present...then 50/50 is NOT an option.  Right now MOST New CO's have a CP and NCP getting weekend visits.  THis should NOT BE!!!  50/50 should be set up first...then if an issue comes along, it can be revisited.

I too agree that CS should be "accountable".  I have no problem stating where and how much I spend on my DS and DD...because I know every dime and then some of CS I get goes to them.  I typically get $500 a month for 2 kids (I say typically because some months I get less...but never more...sigh).  I think that is sufficient to see that their needs are met. 
Now DH is going to have to shell out about $750 for ONE child??  Just simply because he got an increase in pay?? That to me is just not right!  Especially since we KNOW that the BM does NOT spend that amount on SS!!  SS came to visit this summer and one day I was doing laundry.  I go to fold the clothes and I pull out a pair of boxers that I didn't recognize as being my DS's...so I realized they were SS's.  Now my SS is nearly 17 y/o about 5'10 and weighs about 145-150 lbs.  This pair of boxers were BOYS size 10!!  Not even my DS who is 12 y/o could fit in them!!!  So DH and I took SS shopping for clothes, socks and most of all UNDERWARE!!

[Kitty C.]

BT DT, too, Giggles!

About 8 years ago (when BM was still a genuine PBFH), I was helping SS sort his clothes out when I found a pair of underwear with '50' written in sharpie on the tag.  Come to find out, BM bought ALL of the clothes that SS came to us in from a second-hand store!   From the skin out!  When I showed it to DH, he blew a gasket!

Now, I have no problem whatsoever with second-hand stores, but I draw the line at underwear!  When DH took SS home that weekend, he had it out with BM, telling her he pays her enough CS (almost twice what I got for DS) that she can at least afford NEW underwear.  And if she couldn't, then he would look into getting custody changed, because she obviously couldn't take care of even his basic needs.

She NEVER did it again...........

[eagleeyefam]

The parent receiving CS can forgive past amounts. It takes picking up the phone and calling the CS office to find out what to do. Most times they send you a packet to fill out and have notorized. YOu mail it back or drop it off in person. No court hearings. It's very easy.

If the situation truly is about the child then the OP wouold have looked into this option.

I understand when budgets are tight. I know it's very nice to have the extra income each month. But CS is NEVER a guarantee.

[Giggles]

eagle...I agree 100%...and I'm a CP!

There was a time I could have relied heavely on CS...but...at that time I didn't get any and now that I do get CS...I don't need it?? hehehe  Well lets just say I don't rely on it.  When/if it comes in...I may take the kids out to do something fun.

I have to laugh because I know DH's X is going to be relying heavely on the "new" CS amount she's going to get from him....but that will end probably June-July next year....then what is she going to do???  I know I will be laughing all the way to the bank!! hehehe

[Kitty C.]

Oh good grief, Giggles.........the same here!

When DH and BM divorced, the court ordered ONE DOLLAR in alimony, which is included in the CS.  I know, sounds weird, but it was because BM is hearing-impaired and it was based on if she is ever unemployed and unable to find a job.  Well, she's been at the same place for practically 20 years, so I don't think there's any threat of that.  But my question is......once SS turns 18 and DH no longer has to pay CS, will she pitch a fit if she doesn't get her DOLLAR every year??   

[mdegol]

In terms of ideas on how to make things more "fair", IMHO all attempts at making old situations "fair" result in new situations that are "unfair".

As I am sure most of us have realized, the justice system is not about fairness. That is why it isn't called the Fairness System. The reason society has dictated that child support must be paid, is that it prevents the state (or others) from being financially responsible for your child. That's it! That's why states will NEVER get rid of child support. If they did, the welfare ranks would go up exponentially.

If you think that taxes are bad now, and stop requiring child support, stop enforcing child support.

This is why you go to jail! I guess that's the only stick that makes so many comply with the orders. But it is much more about stopping the food stamp reliance that was mentioned as an viable resort for those caring for children.

So, if you ask me, motivation aside, when a CO enforces child support, one could see it as a attempt to avoid going on welfare and having to rely on state services. Lets call it: motivation for one not caring for children full-time to get a job. And if the NCP has the money to pay, and is just not paying, everyone seems to agree that person should go to jail. In either case, one can at least understand why they end up in jail.

And I absolutely disagree that one should "justify" how child support is spent. Who would judge which of those pennies where justified and which were not? The new wife? The new husband?

[Momfortwo]

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.   

This isn't a two parent family so your statement above is full of holes.  This is a divorced family with a child support order.  One that the NCP is REFUSING to follow. 

From what the original poster wrote, the NCP is refusing to get/keep a job.  That's voluntary.  If I had a  husband that did that without my agreement, I would file for divorce.  A lay off and for medical reasons is different.  It's not willful. 

And if the NCP is not working for these reasons (which I doubt given what the OP wrote), then the NCP needs to file for a modification.  The NCP in this case is REFUSING to do that.  And that is not the CP's fault.  The NCP is totally in the wrong here and should be arrested.  And the arrest should be done at a time when it can be gauranteed that the child won't be with him.  Which means making arrangements for the child to be elsewhere and informing LE where he will be so that they can do their job. 

And before someone points out that they can arrest the NCP at anytime, he lives in a different state than where the order is.  Until ALL states cooperate with each other, it's not easy to arrest a person in a different state.