Showing fraud?

[gemini3]

We're (still) waiting to go to court, but meantime we've found out that BM is getting support (food stamps, free lunch for the kids, etc.) from the government.  Her live-in fiance makes well over the limit for these things, but she's not claiming his income - which is illegal.  Do you think we should bring this up in court?  I think that it would help show what kind of person she is, and also show that she's willing to lie to get what she wants - making everything else she says less believable.  

Any thoughts?

[Jade]

>We're (still) waiting to go to court, but meantime we've
>found out that BM is getting support (food stamps, free lunch
>for the kids, etc.) from the government.  Her live-in fiance
>makes well over the limit for these things, but she's not
>claiming his income - which is illegal.  Do you think we
>should bring this up in court?  I think that it would help
>show what kind of person she is, and also show that she's
>willing to lie to get what she wants - making everything else
>she says less believable.  
>
>Any thoughts?

No, that's not illegal.  All he has to do is write a statement stating that he buys his own food and gives her no money at all.

Once they are actually married, she will have to claim his income.

[FatherTime]

So...

It's not her lying?....It's him? (the live-in fiance)

To me it's still fraud.  Common sense just doesn't come into play in the real-life application of government aid to mothers.  For real though... you know that a fiance is EXPECTED to foot the bill.  Or is that statement sexist?

I wouldn't attack this aspect of her honesty in court and public welfare, because it could make you look like you want to deprive a poor single mother and her children of the basic necessities. (rotflmao)

It's MAMA time.

[Jade]

>So...
>
>It's not her lying?....It's him? (the live-in fiance)
>
>To me it's still fraud.  Common sense just doesn't come into
>play in the real-life application of government aid to
>mothers.  For real though... you know that a fiance is
>EXPECTED to foot the bill.  Or is that statement sexist?
>
>I wouldn't attack this aspect of her honesty in court and
>public welfare, because it could make you look like you want
>to deprive a poor single mother and her children of the basic
>necessities. (rotflmao)
>
>It's MAMA time.
>
>
>


Your BIAS is showing.  

The same rule applies when it is the father who is getting assistance and living with a fiancee.  And whether you choose to believe this or not, it DOES happen.  It is NOT illegal for a recipient to not claim the income of someone living with them as long as they are not married and the non-recipient puts it in writing that the food is separate.  I didn't say that they weren't lying.  I just pointed out the fallacy in the statement that it is illegal.

And bringing it up in court isn't going to do a damn thing for one's child support/custody hearing.  

[Ref]

He would roll his eyes and not even address it. It would be considered irrelevant for a couple of reasons. 1. You can not really PROVE that she is doing anythign wrong and 2. It may show that she is being dishonest, but that doesn't really say she sis being a bad mother. More a character flaw rather than a serious threat to the wellbeing of your child.

If I were you, I would skip bringing it up in court for the simple fact that you will probably be perceived as petty and it wont get you anywhere. You may want to drop a note in the mail to the agency stating that you believe that there is fraud and they may want to look into it further. - But I would not use it in court.

Ref

[gemini3]

Actually, it is illegal.  To qualify for any federally funded program you must claim all of the income for anyone in the household.  Go look at the program guidelines online if you don't believe me.  Same for free lunch at school.  Not to claim all of the household income is fraud.

I see what the other poster meant about it looking bad in court, but when they have 3 brand new vehicles (a sports car, minivan, and motorcycle - all $30K+ vehicles), live in a gated community, and buy extravagent gifts for the children on a regular basis... I doubt that anyone would see her as being "deprived of the basic necessities".  She gets away with it because everything is in his name and she doesn't work.  Her only income is child support, and that's all she's claiming I guess.

My point is that she's a liar and willing to manipulate the system whenever it would benefit her.  If she'll lie to the government to get food stamps and free lunches she doesn't need, why wouldn't she lie about other things in court to get her way?

I think that it's wrong for people to manipulate the system in that way.  There are people who need these services, and I don't have a problem with them getting them.  I just think you should be honest about your "level of need", and not take things for free when you can afford to pay for them just because you can get away with it.  

[Jade]

>Actually, it is illegal.  To qualify for any federally funded
>program you must claim all of the income for anyone in the
>household.  Go look at the program guidelines online if you
>don't believe me.  Same for free lunch at school.  Not to
>claim all of the household income is fraud.
>
>I see what the other poster meant about it looking bad in
>court, but when they have 3 brand new vehicles (a sports car,
>minivan, and motorcycle - all $30K+ vehicles), live in a gated
>community, and buy extravagent gifts for the children on a
>regular basis... I doubt that anyone would see her as being
>"deprived of the basic necessities".  She gets away with it
>because everything is in his name and she doesn't work.  Her
>only income is child support, and that's all she's claiming I
>guess.
>
>My point is that she's a liar and willing to manipulate the
>system whenever it would benefit her.  If she'll lie to the
>government to get food stamps and free lunches she doesn't
>need, why wouldn't she lie about other things in court to get
>her way?
>
>I think that it's wrong for people to manipulate the system in
>that way.  There are people who need these services, and I
>don't have a problem with them getting them.  I just think you
>should be honest about your "level of need", and not take
>things for free when you can afford to pay for them just
>because you can get away with it.  
>
>
Well, then report her to the welfare office.  You will find out just how "illegal" it is.

[Ref]

that the forum is not family court for this. You should complain to the proper channels.

As far as your ex looking like a liar that manipulates the system, you are in good company. DH's ex was on welfare for 10 years while she got her masters degree in psychology. She knew exactly how long she had to go back to work for to go right back onto welfare.

Not only do I sympathize, but I also want you to know that family law judges see this stuff all the time. It will not shock them and it will not change their mind on anything else.

A way that I was told to think about it is like this. If it would be enough to take a child out of an "intact" home, it would be enough to change custody. Would a judge take custody from an intact household because they are dishonest? If they were petty theives? If they lied on their taxes? No.

Good luck
Ref

[FatherTime]

I was doing that on purpose.  Just having some fun.  Not much that anyone can do with it.  

:)