State Tries to Steal Child Support Money From a National Guardsman Who Was Seven Years Old at the Time the Child in Question Was Born? How "Odd"!

United Press International, I love you, I miss you, I used to work for you…but this story does not belong under "Odd News":

A Florida man says the state is trying to force him to pay child support for a child who was born when he was 7 years old.

Rusty Cole, a National Guardsman from Port Orange, Fla., said his tax return was delayed by the state because officials told him he owes support payments for a child born in 1995 -- despite the fact that Cole was born in late 1987, Central Florida News 13 reported Wednesday.

Cole said weeks of phone calls and office visits failed to yield any results.

"They were like, 'Oh, yes, we have it on here that you are the father,' and I was like, 'Ma'am, there's no way,'" Cole said to News 13.

This case, as older Reason readers will know, is not some kind of quirky accident, but the direct and predictable consequence of a system that incentivizes states to locate any dependable male source of revenue regardless of plausible (let alone provable) connection to the child.

Link via Amy Alkon, who is one of the only journalists working who seems to care about a system that declares you guilty until proven innocent, tries mightily to avoid DNA testing, and results in innocent men losing their passports and professional licenses, among many many other outrages.

Comments

[Aresen]

He probably had "sinful" thoughts as a six year old.

[Kolohe]

As you no doubt already know, former reason intern James Taranto has been on the 'oddly enough' jihad for a decade now.

[John]

Happens all the time. In order to get welfare, you have to give the state the name of a father. So deadbeat moms who don't know who the father is, go out on the black market and buy the names of men whose identities have been stolen. They then give those names to the state. And the state then goes after and sometimes jails the man. If the man is lucky and has a few thousand dollars and can hire a good lawyer, he can beat the rap. The deadbeat mom, who should be locked up for fraud, goes away untouched to steal some other man's identity so she can stay on welfare.

[scape]

Hadn't heard about the stolen identity version but when I was a TANF worker the variation I usually ran into was the mother knowing who the father was but, not wanting him to rack up child support payments, usually because he was still around and/or sometimes providing support directly to her, would give the name of someone she knew that wasn't the father. Sometimes the listed father existed, sometimes not; mom could claim a one night stand and only knew a first name.

[John]

There have been several cases in the news about guys in one state getting hit with a support order in a state they have never been to by a woman they have never met. If the mom gives the wrong name it ought to be fraud. Of course the ultimate solution to all of this is to stop giving welfare and tell people to raise their own kids or go to a charity. Then, it wouldn't be the state's business who the father.

[scape]

I had several cases where more than one father was listed for a child. I imagine that either Child Payment Support couldn't find the first one she gave and needed another to go after or she just gave more than one at the beginning thinking it would keep them busy and out of her business.

I kept waiting for a new applicant to just tear out a page from the phone directory and say "it was one of these guys."

[Brian Sorgatz]

Part of the broader problem in society is that so many men who (rightly) support a woman's right to an abortion lack the balls to support a Roe v. Wade for men. Reason's own Tim Cavanaugh, for example, has been pussywhipped into accepting the notion that, when it comes to reproduction, women get the choices and men get the responsibilities.

[Mad Max]

I suppose a "Roe v. Wade for men" would make sense given the premises of *Roe,* but then, just about any horror makes sense given those premises.

[Tulpa]

When something has "for men" embedded in its name, you can be pretty sure it's not for men.

[The Libertarian Guy]

This is a result of the dark side of feminism. Period.

[MNG]

I'm betting it has more to do with a sort of "deep pockets" thinking on part of the state, and could even be an indirect result of the conservative concern over the state (read: us) having to support "fatherless" children. Since the welfare coffers are (rightly)restricted they go hunting for someone who can pay, actual paternity is secondary...

[John]

You are both right. It is an alliance from hell between feminists and pro family conservatives. Donctrinaire feminists hate men and have no problem with locking up innocent men or forcing innocent men to pay for children that are not theirs. In a hardcore feminists' view, all men are guilty of something so it is never wrong to fine them or lock them up. Just one more potential rapist off the street.

The pro-family conservatives love to go after "dead beat dads". And they hate the idea of giving money to a welfare mother when the dad is living well and not paying child support. So, they were all too willing to deprive father's of due process and set up rules like the one in this case that ends up punishing innocent people.

[The Libertarian Guy]

MNG, there is NO justification for putting innocent people on the hook for child support. Period.

[anonymous]

When did he say it was justified?

[bigbigslacker]

"I wouldn't have my cock all the way up your ass right now were it not for conservative concern over the state having to support fatherless children. So, it's really their fault. Take it up with them"

That's slightly absurd. Don't peoples of the left express concern over the state having to support fatherless children?

[Matt Welch]

The rules were part of Welfare Reform.

[MNG]

So ironically it has less to do with the Awesome Power of Radical Feminists than with a long-cherished conservative ideal.

Who'da thunk?

[John]

Bullshit. It has a lot to do with the power of radical feminists. Who do you think works at these state agencies that go after fathers? Generally doctrinaire feminists who don't give a shit about the truth and always go after the father. These rules are enforced so badly because the courts and child welfare agencies have been totally skewed against men. And that is the result of the efforts of radical feminists.

I know it surely comes as a shock to you since you are incapable of ever admitting that any liberal anywhere can do anything but good. But, liberals really do do harm sometimes.

[MNG]

I've no great love for radical feminists John, but it Welfare Reform was jewell of the right for decades. "Radical Feminists" just don't have much power. Few "radicals" do period.

[John]

Read the fucking post you moron. It is not just about the rules. It is about how those rules are enforced by the state agencies. Welfare reform doesn't say "any guy can responsible whether it is his child or not". The problem isn't the rule as much as the complete disregard for the truth that these state agencies have when pursuing these cases. They never bothered to care or look at the facts because in their view, the women never lies and every man is guilty. That is the result of radical feminism.

You are as bad fucking Joe Boyle used to be. You absolutely refuse to believe or admit that any liberal can ever do anything wrong or that any liberal ideal has ever produced even unintended adverse consequences.

Jesus, is it that hard to admit that feminists have totally fucked up the family court system in this country and screwed countless numbers of men?

[MNG]

John
it occurs to me from the level of thughtfulness in many of your posts that perhaps you were a kid when the Welfare Reform Act was passed in teh 1990s. I can assure that "radical feminists" were adamantly opposed to it. You're off you're rocker here, riding the rails down the Limbaugh American Misinformation Express again...

[John]

MNG we are not talking about welfare reform. Once again, no where in welfare reform does it say that people should have to pay for children that are not theirs. The problem is not the rule so much as how the rule is enforced. The State Angency in this case never bothered to actually see if this guy was the father. They didn't care. They assumed that he was because they operate from the default position that women never lie and men are always guilty. That is attitude is the result of feminism not welfare reform.

Now, if you want to respond to that point, please do. But screaming welfare reform was not passed by feminists, is not a response to my point it is just trolling.

[MNG]

John, where in the Welch post or the UPI article does it say this has nothing to do with the rules of Welfare Reform?

Look at the leaps you have to make to get to where you want to go. You have to assume the Welfare Reform rules, as pushed for decades by conservatives, don't require or incentivize (to use Matt's term) this kind of thing. Then you have to leap to the idea that "radical feminists" control the welfare departments of Florida (and I'm guessing other states from your comments [Utah?]). None of this you can show, of course. It's just all "understood" in the Bizarro World of Right-Wing Media...

[John]

The rule that mothers have to tell the government who the father of their children are in order to get welfare, does not make it okay to stick it to any random guy. Now, are these people enforcing this rule in such an incompetent and unjust way because they are evil conservatives trying collect their pound of flesh? Or are they being enforced that way because our entire family court system is skewed against men?

The answer is probably a little bit of both. But the anecdotal evidence almost always involved men getting screwed by these agencies. If it were just about money, women would sometimes be on the wrong end of things. But they never seem to be. That certainly points to it being at least as much of a problem of feminism as it is of money grubbing state agencies.

As I said above, the whole thing is an alliance from hell between social conservatives bent on stopping welfare queens and feminists who hate men. But unlike you, I can actually admit that my side sometimes does the wrong thing. You, in contrast think that liberals are always and only capable of sugar and spice and all things nice.

[MNG]

John, your backpedaling and moving posts, nice trick!

One reason why I know you are full of shit is because I know some "radical feminists" and have read some "radical feminists" and in your ignorance of them you give them too much credit. They aren't about hunting down dead beat dads to take responsiblity for kids, they will tell you straight up they favor "collective responsibility" for women who have kids. They just want everyone to support them straight up no questions asked.

Feminists went nuts over welfare reform. They hated it with a vengance. It was welfare reform that wrought these f*cked up changes Matt is pointing too (Matt indicated so himself dude). Don't get me wrong, it's an unintended consequence to be sure, welfare reform is still mostly a solid idea that I supported then and now.

[MNG]

In your ignorance of "radical feminists" you give them too much credit and as usual ascribe the wrong things to the wrong people John. I know some radical feminists personally and have read some radical feminists. They are not for hunting down dead beat dads, they are for straight up "collective responsibility" for women who have kids. They think "society" should just send them checks, straight up no questions asked. The whole dead-beat dad thing was a "responsibility" thing pushed as Welfare Reform, the jewell of the right for decades.

As Matt said the paternity of this baby is Welfare Reform. Now, I supported Welfare Reform then and now, it's correct, it just has had some awful unintended consequences...

[The Libertarian Guy]

Okay, welfare reform AND radical feminism play a part, MNG. Man up and face facts.

[Enough About Palin]

"Once again, no where in welfare reform does it say that people should have to pay for children that are not theirs."

Then please explain taxation.

[John]

Touche. That is not welfare reform. That is just welfare.

[Tonio]

John claims to have been in the US Navy circa 1960, and to have gone to law school after that. That would put him at roughly age 70 now, so he'd have been in his fifties during the 1990's.

[MNG]

Matt Welch|2.18.10 @ 10:48AM|#
The rules were part of Welfare Reform.

This is the guy who posted the post, right John?

[Enough About Palin]

So that goddam Republican president Bill Clinton is to blame for this. Figures.

[MNG]

Yeah, because he waved a magic wand and it became the law of the land!

[MNG]

Yeah, because Bill waved a magic wand and it became the law...

[Geezer]

He waved a pen and it became a law

[The Libertarian Guy]

Welfare reform was needed, and is still not complete. Too many able-bodied people getting goodies from those who do work, is never a solution.

[Geezer]

Conservative ideal: fathers should support the children they produce

Liberal implementation: assume guilt until proven innocent and issue default judgements so that actual innocence is no longer a relevant defense

Go fuck yourself MNG. You stopped providing meaningful conter-points to the libertarian philosophy a long time ago. You have become nothing more than an annoying piece of shit.

[MNG]

Yeah geezer, those conservatives love them some rights of the accused and those liberals have historically been the enemey of the rights of the accused...Whatever bizarro

[MNG]

I mean, I'm betting about 8 out of 10 landmark SCOTUS victories for the rights of the accused this century had the ACLU on the side of the accused.

Liberals don't have to answer to conservative charges about not respecting the rights of the accused goofball.

[John]

So men who are wrongly stuck with huge child support payments are just some "accused goofball". The family court systems in this country are totally messed up. And these court systems and child welfare agencies have been run almost exclusively by liberals for at least 40 years. I would say liberals have some things to answer for regarding the family laws in this country.

[MNG]

John
Take a breath FreedomWarrior. There was supposed to be a comma in there "accused, goofball." Geezer is the said goofball, not the accused.

"And these court systems and child welfare agencies have been run almost exclusively by liberals for at least 40 years."

[citation ommitted]

[John]

Yeah, the people who work in family law and state welfare agencies are all conservatives. Come on MNG, stop being stupid and engage in the argument.

[MNG]

So you have no evidence for your generalization? Not even Hannity?

[The Gobbler]

Why do you even waste your breath on this piece of shit?

[The Gobbler]

This was to John Re: MNG

And FUCK these nested comments.

[Michael Ejercito]

I mean, I'm betting about 8 out of 10 landmark SCOTUS victories for the rights of the accused this century had the ACLU on the side of the accused.

Whose side did the ACLU take in Citizens United ?

[John]

Or Kelo or Heller.

[MNG]

I don't think First Amendment cases are traditionally thought of as "right of the accused" cases, though I guess technically they could be (in the sense that someone could be charged with a crime). Usually that phrase refers to "procedural rights" like we are talking about.

[John Thacker]

Whose side did the ACLU take in Citizens United ?

The ACLU was pro-First Amendment on Citizens United. See here. A fact that has some of their members grumbling, as noted here.

Where MNG's logic goes wrong is eliding from "the ACLU" to "liberals." It's not inconsistent at all that the ACLU could oppose certain policies and yet the prime drivers and supporters of the policies also be liberal.

Something similar certainly happens with, say, trains and government infrastructure in general, where the biggest supporters of government spending on infrastructure are liberals, and yet the biggest obstacles to getting infrastructure built are Davis-Bacon wage rates, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and its Environmental Impact Statements that slow things down by ten years, community organizing, and many other policies supported by liberals. (Eminent domain is a drop in the bucket compared to those; save on one of those areas, and you'd easily have enough money to buy necessary land without eminent domain pissing people off.)

[John Thacker]

(What, I can only have two links in a comment now? In editing my comment to remove one of the links I futzed up the HTML a bit, though it still works and you can get to both links.)

[bagoh20]

John has it right. The law here is not the problem, it's the people implementing it who don't care about innocence. Now law is needed to coral them in and protect the accused. Simple DNA test is all that's needed. Simple, quick and 100% just.

Guys, get fixed or take other appropriate action to 100% prevent pregnancy. Your entire life is at stake. A life sentence. Your dick does not care about you or your bank account.

[scape]

The laws might be written by a feminist left and conservative right alliance in the hallowed halls of the state office but the implementation and paperwork is usually done by zombified bureaucrats who just do their 40 hours and collect the paycheck. Most front line workers in a state welfare agency that sticks around for more than 5 years has had any left/right idealism scraped out with their state issued agency ID card.

For them, truth and facts are only whats on the approved forms. Any claims beyond that are beyond their grasp.

[MNG]

"The law here is not the problem, it's the people implementing it who don't care about innocence."

[citation ommitted]

[Enjoy Every Sandwich]

The problem is that getting "fixed" won't help a bit. The subject of the article, for instance, was only 7 years old and was thus "fixed" in the sense of not being sexually mature.

The scandal here is that men are being robbed by women they've never met, let alone knocked up.

[John Thacker]

I mean, I'm betting about 8 out of 10 landmark SCOTUS victories for the rights of the accused this century had the ACLU on the side of the accused.

Liberals don't have to answer to conservative charges about not respecting the rights of the accused goofball.

The ACLU took the pro-First Amendment position in Citizens United, yet 80% of "liberals" and most Democratic Party politicians disagree with the decision.

If the Democratic Party were identical to the ACLU then in some ways I'd like it a lot more. But it isn't, so liberals do have something to answer for.

MNG, your argument is like claiming that because DeMint is good on spending and the CPSIA that the Republicans bear no responsibility for it. Or that the existence of the Wall Street Journal and GWB and McCain means that Republicans don't have to answer to any charges of being anti-immigrant. Or that since conservative pressure groups oppose spending, then any excess spending under GWB is somehow all Democrats' fault.

[John Thacker]

I'm betting about 8 out of 10 landmark SCOTUS victories for the rights of the accused this century had the ACLU on the side of the accused.

Liberals don't have to answer to conservative charges about not respecting the rights of the accused goofball.

The best politicians and think tanks against farm subsidies are all on the Right. Does that mean that Republicans aren't to blame for farm subsidies too?

[The Libertarian Guy]

Conservative ideal: fathers should support the children they produce

Exactly. And men who do NOT produce children, should not have their paychecks molested by the state.

You getting this, MNG?

[Geezer]

nope

[Enough About Palin]

So what's the lighter side of feminism?

[MNG]

No bras?

[Bronwyn]

No, bras are anti-gravity devices and are, therefore, on the lighter (or lightening) side on principle.**

** Clarification provided by a proud wearer of over-the-shoulder boulder holders.

[meerdahl]

in theory, that's kinda sexy

in practice, it rarely is

[SugarFree]

So what's the lighter side of feminism?

Crooked chocolate cocks.

[Yet another dave]

I love the comment about hers not looking like that... yea sure ugh

[MNG]

"a system that incentivizes states to locate any dependable male source of revenue regardless of plausible (let alone provable) connection to the child"

Pretty messed up.

[Episiarch]

You know, I've always feared the day when some kid shows up at my door and says "hey, dad! I'm your son! You should have used condoms." But now, I can merely fear the day when I get that child support bill.

[creech]

DNA test; loser pays.

[MNG]

Can't this be open to a due process challenge? It's a deprivation of property based on an indefensible process. Where's the Institute of Justice here?

[Matt Welch]

You would really think, but family law is seriously weird, so I don't know.

[Michael Ejercito]

Family law should place the burden of proof on the accuser with a preponderance of evidence.

[R C Dean]

IJ? What about the ACLU?

[Maverick]

What about Maury Povich? Is his show not suitable for solving paternity cases? Would a stuffy court room ever let a man do a "not the daddy" dance? The Maury Povich Court of Paternity = Due process served and a jig danced all in one pseudo-jury-of-peers venue.

[Michael Ejercito]

That is truly a classic.

[Ted S.]

It's been done

(well, with Jerry Springer in place of Maury Povich)

[Ben P.]

True fact: Despite having seen the libertarian light as a grad student in the early 1990s, I was an economic whore in dire need of a job in the late mid-to-late 1990s, and spent some of that time as a cog in the Child Support collection machine.

I justified it by saying 'Well, in the state of Florida, the CSE program is pure revenue collection designed to make the non-custodial parent pay back the state for the money given out to the custodial parent in welfare, so in the end, it's actually designed to make sure that people don't get to suckle on the public teat." It's amazing, really, what you can convince yourself when you really need a paycheck to avoid living on rice and dirt.

But I digress. The fact is that working for The System in this regard did more to turn me die-hard libertarian than anything else. I saw how the sausages were made, and it made me ill. As soon as I could process a career change and make it happen, I did so and I haven't looked back.

But, to make this more topical, and a direct reply, I will point out, that in the state of Florida, at least last I checked, the overriding rule of the courts is that once a father has been named by a court proceeding, even if it was a default judgment, the court will not undo it, because it would effectively 'bastardize' a child, and that is not considered to be in a child's best interest.

Did I mention how having that job made me physically ill after a while, and I had to shower every day after work?

[JOhnny MAckson]

Wow, pretty scary huh? Can you imagine? I mean really.

Jes
http://www.privacy-tools.de.tc

[Maverick]

Frightening, right? Do tell. I mean come on.

[Michael Ejercito]

It is more frightening than the Taliban in Afghanistan.

[Almanian]

...I mean really.

[Almanian]

You know what's really scary? Bots engaging in political commentary! LOL!

[Almanian Bot]

LOL! Yeah, that Almanian is crazy! LOL!

[Maverick]

Wow! Do you mind if I cite you for a research paper that I'm writing? I mean really. IMO LOL

[Michael Ejercito]

We should abolish child support laws period .

[MNG]

People should not have to support children they bring into the world? WTF?

[dave b.]

People already have a natural incentive to take care of their children. Child support laws allow mothers to trade fatherhood for 18 years of payments, sanctioned by the new father - the state. Not to mention that the laws further disincentivize fatherhood by not taking into account the father's expenses or ability to pay. The gov't has brainwashed people into believing that all 'deadbeat' dads skip out to buy new yachts and Ferraris, when the reality is that most of the men on the enforcement lists are destitute laborers. You really need to go over to GlennSacks.com and educate yourself.

[Madbiker]

I think what he means is that generally the choice to have a child (or any choice for that matter) is truly a private one between two individuals, whether it be an intentional pregnancy or not. C'mon, if you're old enough to "do it" you ought to be old enough to understand the potential consequences of sex, ie, pregnancy (wanted or unwanted). Let the people in question figure it out between the two of them. Don't get the law involved in something that ought to be a private matter. Go to charity or family if your one-night stand or ex-husband won't help you feed the child.

I have a big heart for kids, truly, and I don't like to see suffering, which is why I support charitable organizations (even faith-based ones since they are so prevalent) that help children. What makes me heat to boiling is the idea that I pay money into a general fund that is providing similar services via government enforcement, and that said gov't enforcement fucks it up and gets it wrong so much.

Shotgun weddings were the way families dealt with this issue in a somewhat private way. It might not have been pleasant for the man in question, but at least it was only the father/brothers of the girl doing the prosecuting. Now, the stain of an innocent man's prosecution rests on my head as well as every other citizen's, and I am not pleased at all.

[Brian Sorgatz]

Part of the broader problem in society is that so many men who (rightly) support a woman's right to an abortion lack the balls to support a Roe v. Wade for men. Reason's own Tim Cavanaugh, for example, has been pussywhipped into accepting the notion that, when it comes to reproduction, women get the choices and men get the responsibilities.

[Madbiker]

Agreed. Not that a man should be able to force an abortion, but that he should be able to opt-out of caring for a child he did not want to conceive. If a woman ends up pregnant and gets an abortion, she has terminated any parental responsibility. why can a man not sign some legal papers and do the same thing, effectively terminating any responsibility, since he did not want to go forth with the pregnancy, and she did? Is it part of "possession (of the fetus)" being 9/10ths of the law?

Disclaimer: in my heart of hearts, I cannot sanction abortion. I don't know how to combat unwanted pregnancy on the large scale except to make bc pills or something more accessible to women without an expensive visit to the Rx gatekeepers. Knowledge helps too, but, you know, horses led to water and all that...

[SugarFree]

Some sort of non-hormonal BC for men and women would help. BC pills without major side-effects would be wide-spread and popular.

Easily removed "vasectomy" clips would be useful too. Make it a rite of passage to get them on your 13th birthday. Like a bar mitzvah for your balls.

[Madbiker]

I heart you SF.

Seriously, cheap birth control without side effects would make someone a mint.

An IUD sort-of fulfills that wish, but there are complications that get very serious if the IUD rips up the uterus. And birth control pills suck. The side effects can be tough to live with. Some are minor; others, not so pretty: potential cancer, blood clots, osteoporosis, weight gain (massive in some cases), migraines, and the kicker of all - reduced sex drive (go figure).

Sadly, there is no proven non-invasive method of birth control except to be, ahem, non-invasive of a vagina.

[Tim]

Seriously, cheap birth control without side effects would make someone a mint.

True, but no company wants to research this because they get sued by the fundamentalists that don't like any birth control, that is why birth control has not advanced past the 60s.

[Michael Ejercito]

True, but no company wants to research this because they get sued by the fundamentalists that don't like any birth control, that is why birth control has not advanced past the 60s.

What would be the basis for such a suit?

[Madbiker]

Seconded, what is the basis for the suit?

And, I disagree that birth control has not advanced since the 1960. The new combo pill, injectables, transdermals, and low-dose and various types of hormones all signal that "the pill" has come a long way since the high-dose synthetic estrogen pills of yore.

[Ben P.]

See above comment from another thread about my history and experience with this.

I will point out here that one of the things that always used to get me is that, in Florida in the mid-to-late 1990s (whence my experience, as noted above, comes), the law was supposed to take into account both parents' earning potential and plug this into some carefully parsed formula when determining how much money the non-custodial parent had to pay.

So, in theory, if John Doe was a lawyer, and Mary Sue Smith was an LPN, their actual salaries or an imputed sum based on the fair market wages of such professions would be used to determine how much John would pay Mary, or vice versa.

The problem here? The law wouldn't take into account the decisions that both parents would have to live with if they were still a couple. To use the above example: If John burned out on practicing law and decided to become a schoolteacher, the law would still impute his wages as an attorney for purposes of the computation of the child support amount he was supposed to pay.

You know, because in an intact family, Dad always has to maximize his revenue and never gets to make a decision like 'for my health's sake, I must take a lower paying job'.

So, to reiterate: Once you're in the system, you pretty much can't stop climbing the corporate ladder in whatever profession you best qualify for, because you're screwed if you do.

Again, see above for my disclaimers about wanting to poke my eyes out some days after seeing this sort of crap in practice.

[Nick]

If the mother cannot convince the father to help her raise the child and she cannot raise it herself, or with the help of family/friends/charity then she can give it up for adoption. The state need not get involved.

Perhaps the lack of government as enforcer will make women more responsible with who they let impregnate them. If women want to be in control of what to do after they find out they are pregnant, they should also take control of the before part. Use birth control, insist on condoms, abstain, etc. They should take all necessary precautions to not be saddled with a child they cannot raise.

[Michael Ejercito]

People should not have to support children they bring into the world? WTF?

They should , but the government should not make them do it, due to the results that we observe.

[Bot Almanian Bot]

LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LO.....*clunk*

[Fluffy]

Actually, if the conservative pro-family movement had any sense whatsoever and any idea of how to actually accomplish their goals, they would simply change the law to make child support apply only to children born in wedlock.

If you aren't married, you aren't "the father" and your wallet is safe.

They should simultaneously change all federal transfer payments to children and mothers to increase them for families including two married partners and decrease them for single parent households.

This would accomplish a whole lotta fundy goals simultaneously:

1. It would punish women who are sexually promiscuous outside of marriage.

2. It would punish divorce.

3. It would stop incentivizing people to NOT get married, and would incentivize them to GET married. A lot of those marriages would be shams, but so what? As Vonnegut pointed out, after a certain point we are what we pretend to be. If you end up with a bunch of people looking for higher benefits who are married in name only and don't have sex or otherwise interact as spouses, that's no different from half the "real" marriages out there anyway. And a certain percentage of the people "pretending" to be married would end up stumbling their way into stable two-earner family lives.

Seriously, all the family values group leaders should be fired and I should be hired in their place.

[Aresen]

Seriously, all the family values group leaders should be fired and I should be hired in their place.

I suggest you negotiate for funeral expenses as part of your benefits package.

[John]

I totally agree with you. If you can't close your legs and won't marry the men you sleep with, then raise the damn kids on your own.

[Mo]

Abortion rates would also skyrocket.

[Fluffy]

By the way, just to clarify:

I'm not saying the goals in the post above are MY goals. They aren't.

I'm just saying, if you have a "family values" centric view of the world, that's how you should proceed.

[Fluffy]

"And these court systems and child welfare agencies have been run almost exclusively by liberals for at least 40 years."

[citation ommitted (sic)]

Well, we could do a study if you want, but surely it's pretty much sociology 101 to say that one reason people choose government social work as a vocation in the first place is because they think that government social work is a good thing.

"Believing government social work is a good thing" = "liberalism".

Saying that social work is dominated by liberals is like saying that the priesthood is dominated by people with religious faith. Sure, we can take a poll if you want, but do we really have to?

[Aresen]

I am in the "your genes, you pay the bills" camp (with the obvious exception of children concieved from a sperm bank). There are very few cases where the father was duped into impregnating the mother.

So I favor forcing deadbeat dads to pay support for the child they have sire.

But there must be a 'due process' - DNA tests being the obvious test of paternity. Agencies that resist DNA testing are simply being obstructionist.

[Marshall Gill]

So I favor forcing deadbeat dads to pay support for the child they have sire.

And "deadbeat" mothers? Why is a man supposed to be financially responsible for his children but not women? Much of the welfare distributed by the State is directed to women who are not financially responsible for their children.

The other issue, to me, is that there is a gigantic difference between being responsible for your children and making payments to their mother. In most cases, as long as the mother doesn't end up in jail for negligence, she is held to no level of responsibility. So forcing fathers to pay child support doesn't equal being responsible for one's children, only for their mother.

[Aresen]

I agree that custody rules have to be reviewed as well.

It is not a given that the mother is the better parent. So, if the child is with the father, then the mother should have to pay support. (There have been a few cases of this, but it is rarer than a quality diamond at Walmart. As for getting it written into law, good luck!)

[Ben P.]

When I worked CSE in the mid-to-late 1990s, in Florida, I was told that it was about a 1:4 metric ... So, for every 5 cases, 4 had a mom with custody, 1 had a dad. 20 percent, while small, is not meaningless nor diamond-rare.

[Tonio]

[P]eople choose government social work as a vocation in the first place is because they think that government social work is a good thing...

Some do. Others are psych majors who can't get into grad school and go into social work because it's marginally better than waiting tables. Many of my classmates ended up as welfare caseworkers, and all of them hated it. Fortunately, I had computer skills.

[scape]

Bingo! When I was a caseworker they told me to think of the job as welfare for college grads.

[Ben P.]

As someone who worked this grind, I'll second this. It's a job you can get with a college degree and no other qualifications. It saved me from being a Wal Mart cashier (which is what I was doing to pay a token amount towards my excessive credit card bills when the call came that my application at Florida's CSE was accepted).

[Jersey Patriot]

This really isn't a left-right thing. This is about bureaucrats with no frontal lobe.

[Geezer]

The problem will be somewhat mitigated once we have all the teenagers in America under house arrest for sexting each other.

[ChicagoTom]

Personally I think the problem is with the courts. It's the family law courts that have decided that the well being of the child takes precedence over the rights of either the mother or the father.

While that sentiment is a good one in theory, in practice the courts have gone overboard. In many these cases the courts have decided that unless you challenge paternity within a small window of time, it doesn't matter whether you are really the father or not.

They refuse to penalize state agencies when they fail to properly notify the named father or even try to find the person. Many times these alleged "deadbeat dads" don't even know that they have been named as the father and that there has been a child support order from the courts until it's too late to contest it.

The family law courts have taken a perverse position on the due process rights of fathers and aren't concerned at all with fairness or propriety in the system, but are instead simply concerned with making sure a child has someone, anyone, on the hook.

I don't know any other area of law where people can be held liable for things that they can prove they shouldn't be liable for simply because it's in the best interest of a third party to hold someone liable.

It's disgusting and quite surprising that the SCOTUS hasn't stepped in.

[WDIK]

It's not the best interest of the child that has perverted the courts. It's the monetary incentive the federal government has setup. The states get matching funds from the fed based on the number of people (usually fathers) on the state's child support roles. The states want as many people as they can get in the child support system because then they get more money. They don't care if the person named is the actual parent. You know if a person proves with DNA testing that they are not the parent of child it still does not matter to the state. In the states opinion there was time (a short window of time) to contest the paternity. What's that you didn't know? There was an ad taken out in a newspaper. Didn't you see it? No, oh well too bad we had a trial and you weren't there so you're on the hook now. It's truly an evil system that has nothing to do with the best interest of the child but rather the best interest of the state. As for due process these aren't criminal proceedings, although they should be, so no due process necessary.

[Michael Ejercito]

I have read elsewhere, especially in articles about Israel, that injustice breeds terrorism.

I wonder what acts of terrorism has been committed or will be committed as a result of this injustice.

[Ben P.]

Bingo on this.

Somewhere along the line, the legal principles *in the courtroom where the individual cases and court orders are decided on* became that the child has rights which not only take precedence either parent's rights, but both of theirs collectively.

See the example I gave above in another thread: In a family in Florida's CSE system, the parents *literally* could not, at least as recently as the late 1990s, decide to take a lesser paying job for quality of life or satisfaction or stress reduction.

If the couple were an intact couple, Junior would have been required to live with whatever decisions Mommy and Daddy made about their jobs and incomes, but because the parents separate, they both lose the right to avoid working themselves to the bone.

[Joker]

So hypothetically speaking, could the falsely accused father pay back child support payments that he supposedly owed and then turn around, hire a lawyer, and sue the dead beat mother for custody of her child?

It sounds crazy, but is it possible to turn it around and put the burden of proof on the dead beat mother?

[Ben P.]

The courts used to rule that custody and child support payments were not linked issues for the courts to decide, except during divorce petitions.

In other words, once a woman got a court order against a man (or vice versa) for pure child support, outside the boundaries of a divorce dispute (in cases, for example, of non-married parents), the fact that someone was forced by a court order to pay child support gave no rights to custody or visitation.

Amusingly, a few years ago, I bumped into a former co-worker from my days with Florida's CSE. She noted that I seemed much happier to be out of the swamp, despite the fact that I looked exhausted. I wonder why.

[DADZRITES]

Maybe it's time to start killing child support workers since they violate the laws and Constitution of the United States and respective states with impunity on a daily basis. If they are allowed to break the laws, so can we. It's found under the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause.

There are a lot of fathers out there who've lost their jobs thanks to our government meddling into the banking and mortgage businesses, and now the car businesses. Government, with its lapdog press, like to pick on groups of people to create animosity and divisiveness. It's time to show the government for the real "deadbeat" that it is.

According to a 7-year study done by Arizona State University Professor Sanford Braver, Ph.D., which resulted in his book, "Divorced Dads--Shattering the Myths", he found that less than 5% of those that owed child support are true deadbeat dads-the ones with the younger trophy wives and sports cars, who don't want to pay anything. The truth of the matter, is that according to the Federal Gov't. General Accounting Office, Report # GAO/HRD-92-39FS, pg. 19, over 66% of those owing child support can't pay because they are unemployed, underemployed, disabled, dead, and in some cases the mothers don't want support.

Judges order such onerous child support amounts in some cases, along with alimony, daycare, medical expenses, and other expenses, that the father can't survive. He ends up becoming despondent, leaves his job and drops out of sight. He loses all contact with his child(ren) as a result. This is the government's ultimate goal. Breaking up of father-headed families (and then mother-headed ones when there are no more fathers, wherein, the government will come for the children without any resistance). Government doesn't do anything for altruism. They always have a motive behind what they do and the laws they make. It's all about money, power and control.

Judges in NJ & NY refuse to reduce child support and alimony when a man loses his job because of the current economic climate. They tell the guy that it's too soon to reduce support because "you might get another job" in a short time. Most often the guy never gets the same-salaried position and winds up making substantially less. All the while, he falls farther and farther behind, with no hope of ever making up the arrearages.

But, do the courts reduce support? No. They keep it there until the arrears are so high, that the guy's credit is ruined, and they start putting warrants out for his arrest, even though he did everything he was supposed to do by law.

Judges then use detainers to hold the men in jail, somewhat like bail. But, it isn't bail, because child support is a CIVIL debt. Detainers to keep the men in jail until they pay? STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES! It's not about the children! Keeping a man in jail to pay support is an oxymoron. And, most of the NJ Family Court judges are morons! How does one pay child support if in jail? Does he work in the jail making $10, $15, $20/hr. and have his wages garnished? Does this person invoke the INSOLVENT DEBTORS STATUTES when he gets out of jail, since he has no assets or income, and the jailing served as the remedy for the debt owed? Under the INSOLVENT DEBTORS STATUTES, the debt has been paid once the person has been jailed for it and released. But, the state will try and keep the arrears on the books.

The reason for this: Because judges are granting high orders and enforcing them stringently because the Federal government pays the states a federal reimbursement incentive funding (42 USC Section 658a) for amounts awarded, collected and enforced. This money goes into the state coffers, no strings attached (42 USC Section 658f). The first things paid out of state treasuries are judicial salaries and pensions and state employee salaries and pensions.

This is a major unconstitutional conflict-of-interest that has been outlawed by the US Supreme Court in Tumey v. Ohio, Ward v. Monroeville, Gibson v. Berryhill and other cases. The Supreme Court held that judges and officials (i.e., child support probation officials) who sit in judgment of cases that they have a financial interest in, are too tempted to abuse their contempt powers to jail unsuspecting litigants-taxpayers to extort/extract more and more monies out of them to increase the amount of funding, and ultimately increase their salaries and pensions.

Yet, family court judges continue to thumb their noses at the US Supreme Court mandates. This is not only contempt of the Supreme Court, but felony official misconduct by judges, who are public officials that swore an oath to uphold, support and defend the U.S. Constitution and their respective state constitution. By refusing to disqualify themselves from these cases, where they have a financial interest in the outcome of them, the Supreme Court has held that their orders are essentially null and void and have no effect or force.

Some will say that if we don't have judges or hearing officers to enforce orders, how then will they be enforced? As a taxpayer and voter, that is not our problem. The government made the situation. They must fix it. They can fix it by empanelling a group of people that have no financial interest (for example, economists, vocational experts, marriage experts, accountants, psychologists, even lawyers and retired judges). But, they cannot use arbitrary and capricious contempt powers.

Anyone arrested on one of these orders is being arrested for not only a fraudulent order, but on a CIVIL matter. The U.S. Court of Appeals (2nd highest courts in the land) as well as the US Supreme Ct. hold that one can't be arrested on a CIVIL matter because there is no 4th Amendment probable cause that a crime has been committed to issue an arrest warrant. See, Stevens v. Rose (9th Cir. 2002), Allen v. City of Portland (9th Cir. 1995), Wooley v. City of Baton Rouge (5th Cir. 2000), Peterson v. City of Plymouth (8th Cir. 1995), Moore v. Marketplace Rest.(7th Cir. 1985), Paff v. Kaltenbach (3rd Cir. 2000). Also, included is the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals case of U.S. v. Parker, 108 F.3d 28, 30-31 (3rd Cir. 1997)(child support a civil, commercial debt). In U.S. v. Lewko, 269 F.3d 64, 68-69 (1st Cir. 2001), the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held that child support is nothing more than a common civil, commercial debt, and that it is NOT any "special kind of debt". Again, another fraud perpetrated by government officials. Every other Circuit, including the Third, has followed suit and hold that child support is a common commercial, civil debt.

The child support industry is a total fraud. It is a $5-$10 BILLION per year INDUSTRY that, if eliminated, the monies saved and sent to the children that supposedly need it, would wipe out all child support arrears in the US at one time. All that would be needed to do is send the BILLIONS in the form of a Social Security check or wire transfer, since child support enforcement laws are part of the entire Social Security Act.

Lastly, fathers will find an unusual way to pay their child support. They will sue the sheriff's officers and sheriff's departments, probation dept's. (because probation workers sought warrants when they are neither attorneys, nor were those arrested ever on probation). They will sue for Civil Rights Damages and for FALSE ARREST, ASSAULT, AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT (In the New Jersey Constitution, Article I, Section 13, it prohibits Imprisonment for Debt in ANY action; every other state has such a prohibition, and 18 U.S.C. Sections 1581 and 1589 prohibit involuntary servitude by taking someone under government threat and making them work for someone else to pay off a debt).

Even if they can't collect, the state will be paid for the uncollectible debt, to insure a win-win situation for the state. They collect if he pays, and they collect if he doesn't. Child support has long since stopped being about supporting children or relieving taxpayers of the welfare burden. It has now become a lucrative "REVENUE STREAM" for the states, bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars per year. in addition to being a Communistic "TRANSFER OF WEALTH" scheme for the entitlement of women, lawyers and child support INDUSTRY. If not so, then why don't we hear about DEADBEAT MOMS, who fail to pay ordered support in over 65% of cases?

Before castigating the fathers for not supporting their children, show some concern for the corrupt courts who CREATE those fatherless children for profit. The judges and politicians, over the past thirty years, have trivialized fatherhood by giving sole custody to the mothers in 90(+)% of cases, denying fathers their due process rights, treating them like criminals, and separating them from their children in order to separate them from their money. Divorced, or single fathers have had fatherhood beaten out of them, and so, have no consideration for the responsibilities of siring children. Neither is there any respect for marriage by the women bearing those children.

Fatherlessness breeds sexual promiscuity. The socialist-liberals in the courts, the legislatures, and the editorial offices have created a problem. Then they designed programs to throw money at the problem. Those programs have the opposite affect from what was desired. Instead of slowing or stopping the problem, they made it WORSE, creating even MORE fatherlessness. When you analyze the situation with an open mind, it may occur to you, as it has to some, that failure to pay child support might actually a rebellion against tyranny.
Some will say "it hurts the children" when you don't pay. It hurts the children when the custodial mother, supported and empowered by the courts and politicians, deprive the children of contract with their father, which, according to empirical studies, occurs 75% of the time. No wonder there is a lost generation of children out there. It's not an accident. It's by design. The government breaks up families for profit, gain, power and control.

Remember that the next time you accuse someone of being a "deadbeat dad"!

[Uno Hu]

I have listened to and read the bitches and kvetches of men who are forced to support children who are not theirs till my sympathy stream has gone dry.

They (the state) CANNOT make you pay. They can only penalize you if you don't. That penalty does not come free to the state (lost tax revenues plus incarceration costs). If you guys actually had a pair, you'd be participating in civil disobedience, refusing to pay, and refusing to work when garnishment was involved. Would it improve your situation immediately? NO! Would it eventually result in in your release from indentured servitude? YES!! When maintaining the dumbshow became too expensive for the state and extorting men ceased to be profitable it would be addressed.

Freedom ain't [sic] free; it never has been. Pay the price to win your freedom, or continue to pay the ransom that has been demanded of you.

[cinjan]

Love this, I live in Florida an have a 31 year old son who's father paided the state each week for his child support,now each week he paid the same amount yet each week the check was different or it would not come, after long enough of going through "Were is the money he is sending?" I finally stopped getting support through the state only to have the last few checks never show up along with all the missing money inbetween,seems they finally went on some new system an I was never found again, to the tune of over $600, I hope the state enjoyed it. This is Florida.

[jersey]

child support for a child who was born when he was 7 years old.

[sue]

I've worked in this system for 20 years. What frequently happens is that "dad" is served by "substitute service" via his mom, dad or other relative. Due to a dispute with dad/mom/etc. the papers get put in the garbage and dad never gets them then suddenly years later finds out about a final judgment for a case he never knew about. What also happens is the sheriff shows up at an address where dad hasn't lived in years or never did live and somebody takes the papers (most likely the sheriff isn't doing their job properly) and he gets stuck that way. In most states laches prevents the man from fighting the old order and even if the state has a disestablishment of paternity statute that is also limited to a couple of years to be filed. This doesn't just happen to men it happens to mothers too, but in that case mom can't argue that she didn't birth the child and thus owe support. In some states once the man's name goes on that birth certificate it's difficult, nigh unto impossible to get a DNA test. Some of the problem is caused by men and women who think if they just keep moving the problem will go away or that they can't be touched so it's safe to just ignore it. Folks that do that are stupid, sooner or later they want to settle down and have something and their earlier stupidity is now coming back to haunt them.

[sue]

To Dadzrites: A lot of what you said has a lot of truth in it and I agree with a lot of it! You are also erroneous on a few things you said as well. The US constitution prohibits jailing for a "debt." When non-paying parent(s) are "retained" for unpaid support they are not being held for not paying the money, they are being held for direct contempt of Court (thumbing your nose at the Court's order).

In Florida it's called a "writ of bodily attachment" i.e. the paying person's body is being held due to some inaction of their own (I agree, it seems to be a big reach but so far this is how it's being done) & if I'm not mistaken the incarceration is limited to 6 months, no more. This is done in Florida most often because somebody didn't show up for a Florida DOR contempt on support hearing; you just can't miss those folks. It is also done less often for repeated non-compliance with a direct order to pay entered in a previous hearing (i.e. pay $xxxx.xx by a certain date). The third option I've seen occasionally used in my county is "pay or appear." Judges don't do this often because it needs a lot of staff time to implement, if you don't pay on the due date you show up in the judge's chambers to explain why or a warrant is issued (bodily attachment) that same day.

Florida also has a "persistent non-payment" statute which seems to be extremely rarely used, under that statute there can be 3 misdemeanor charges for continued non-compliance and can become felony non-support; since this law went up in the 90's I can only think of 3 times that I know for sure it was actually invoked.

I fully agree that in a lot of cases the attorney's on both sides engage in a lot of "creative" writing during the divorce in order to get the support orders as high/low as possible. The one paying makes their income look far lower than it is and the one that wants the support fights to make it look higher than it is in order to get more support.

Unrepresented people are definetly getting screwed by DOR. These people have no clue what their rights are. They are served with confusing papers that often contain sentences threatening incarceration and license suspensions for non-cooperation and they have no right to representation in the case. In my area (and I'm sure it's this way all over Florida) the initial service package includes a "request for admissions." Any lawyer can tell you what a screw job that one can be.

What pro se folk don't understand is that the only chance they have to challenge the statements/admissions in that document is at the beginning of the case. If they don't answer the "admissions" specifically and admit/deny them each individually that information is taken as irrefutable and can't be challenged later (it says things like you admit you're dad, you admit you had the ability to pay support, you admit that you owe support back to the child's birth (even though Florida now has latches and it is only two years, DOR continues to try to pull support back to birth) and a few other things that screw you later).

DOR is apparently not being watched as to their actions (like so many florida laws). DOR tries to get and enforce support payments against people on ssi (which federal law prohibits), enforcing support against those already on medicaid (also not supposed to do), and failing to follow up on fraud complaints (those have to go to a separate agency and DOR doesn't provide that information). There's also a provision in Florida statute that the state can determine no support for the person's disability, I've never seen that done and they don't tell folks about it either. There's also a hole in the Florida statute and case law regarding parents that willfully refuse to collect on the father's social security disability in favor of raping the Florida tax payers for assistance (they do this to further hide the kid so dad can't find out where the child is to secure visitation). Then lastly we can talk about the parents that secure a support order and then collect on the SSD later and thus are paid twice because the paying person doesn't get they have to come back and tell the court about the now present ssd payments.

New law signed by Florida Governor in June 2010 has some great stuff in it like "REQUIRING" the clerk's office to adjust support on orders with multiple kids without making the parent go back to court to modify as each child hits 18 (as you used to have to) and it also keeps the support re-calculation on the same guidelines as when it was first entered so the parent doesn't get shafted because the new guidelines are higher than it was at the first writing.

As with any law, the legislature writes it and the courts interpret it...it will be a year or more before anyone really knows how this new statute will be applied. There are also some parts of it that scare me. In some circumstances parents that ignore these filings and don't file financials could possibly have their income imputed at 41,000 per year because census says that's median income...I've never made that much here in my whole life!!!!! I'm praying the judges really put the reigns on that one.

To sum up: Many parties in these cases CREATE THEIR OWN DAMN MESSES!!!!!!!!! You must PROTECT YOURSELF! No one does it for you! If the kid moves out you go modify your support, if you lose your job you go modify your support, if you go on SSD and your kid now gets a check you go modify for that new circumstance, if you're injured and can't work for 6 months you go correct your account,

The last DOR abuse has to do with arrearages. Under the old system once the child was majority any arrears were only a percentage...a much smaller amount than the full support with current support. Now apparently due to a law change a few years ago DOR can raise it back to the full payment even on just arrearages!

Yes, people are getting screwed in Florida, many times because they don't know their rights and don't ask questions and don't do any research. Personally I believe our laws are this way because the only ones voting are the oldsters who don't have these issues. Down here support is based on gross, you're left nothing to live on as in some states it's based on what you make over basic living costs, the new June law may address some of this inequity and I have faith that it will

YOU SIMPLY CANNOT IGNORE THIS MATTER AND HOPE IT WILL GO AWAY AND GUYS, DON'T SIGN BIRTH CERTIFICATES UNTIL YOU GO TO WALGREENS AND PAY TWO HUNDRED FOR YOUR OWN DNA FOR YOUR OWN PIECE OF MIND.

[?????]

thanks