Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course the custodial parent is entitled to benefits... FOR THE CHILDREN.
The NCP can also go before the court, explain their financial hardship situation, and not wind up in jail if they are making every reasonable effort to find work, or better work, or more work.
My son lost his job, went to child services, filed a form for adjustment paid 75$ filing fee and was to be notified of the court date. A few days later I watched as the sheriffs department loaded him into the patrol car for non payment because his missed his last CS payment. Meanwhile the ex DIL living in section 8 housing, receiving FS..... yada yada.
So yes it does happen.
On the flip side I know men and women who never pay their CS and somehow never seem to be held accountable by the courts.
There is no logic or consistency. It all dependent on your attorney, how much $ your have, often yes, your gender, the judge, how much the ex bull dogs DCS and the court, your location. The family court system is a hot mess and in need of reform.
Definitely agree with the bolded. I'm sorry that happened to your son.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Seven pages of comments and people still don't get the problem here. Everyone is focusing on the man not challenging the child support payment. But no one seems to have a problem with the court taking the word of a woman about the paternity without the man there to answer such a claim, and making no attempt to VERIFY it before putting this man on the hook for these payments. What ever happened to having to prove your claims in court and allowing the opposing party a right to give their side of the story? None of us would want to be subject to such a process or think that it was fair.
The man may have made a mistake in not inquiring about the wage garnishment. But it really should never have gotten to that point at all given the serious issues with how the court processed this whole case. Our court system is based on innocent UNTIL proven guilty. In this case, it's GUILTY UNLESS the man challenges his wage garnishment. That's a complete failure of our legal system
Seven pages of comments and people still don't get the problem here. Everyone is focusing on the man not challenging the child support payment. But no one seems to have a problem with the court taking the word of a woman about the paternity without the man there to answer such a claim, and making no attempt to VERIFY it before putting this man on the hook for these payments. What ever happened to having to prove your claims in court and allowing the opposing party a right to give their side of the story? None of us would want to be subject to such a process or think that it was fair.
The man may have made a mistake in not inquiring about the wage garnishment. But it really should never have gotten to that point at all given the serious issues with how the court processed this whole case. Our court system is based on innocent UNTIL proven guilty. In this case, it's GUILTY UNLESS the man challenges his wage garnishment. That's a complete failure of our legal system
agreed
Also, no one seems to have a problem with the woman who said
there was no way he wasn’t the father
The guy messed up and made a mistake, too bad, he screwed up. The woman told a lie, (well, she is just naive.)
No a lawyer is not going to rely on the mothers statement that she received a check a few times from what is assumed a wage garnishment. A lawyer is going to go to the child support office or send his secretary to get the actual statement, proving that the check was garnished.
The court does not represent either side. If you give sworn testimony it is accepted by the court unless it is rebutted, check for yourself if you don't believe me. It would be up to the defendant to ask for proof in which case the court would probably issue an order for the plaintiff to produce it.
Seven pages of comments and people still don't get the problem here. Everyone is focusing on the man not challenging the child support payment. But no one seems to have a problem with the court taking the word of a woman about the paternity without the man there to answer such a claim, and making no attempt to VERIFY it before putting this man on the hook for these payments. What ever happened to having to prove your claims in court and allowing the opposing party a right to give their side of the story? None of us would want to be subject to such a process or think that it was fair.
The man may have made a mistake in not inquiring about the wage garnishment. But it really should never have gotten to that point at all given the serious issues with how the court processed this whole case. Our court system is based on innocent UNTIL proven guilty. In this case, it's GUILTY UNLESS the man challenges his wage garnishment. That's a complete failure of our legal system
I agree and have been trying to make that same case here but I think I failed to explain it as well as you did, so thanks!
LOL you amaze me. I simply replied to the other poster's post. That is all. Just because you know how the 'system' works, doesn't mean the system is perfect.
The entire family court system needs an overhaul to fit the current family situations that we have. Child support included.
The entire family court system needs an overhaul to fit the current family situations that we have. Child support included.
The guy did not father the child, he has DNA test to prove that. He does not owe the so called back child support.
Period.
Just because somebody know how the system works, doesn't mean the law is just and fair.
That is why people are discussing this case HOPING things will change for the better. If everybody has this "too bad, he screwed up." attitude, then nothing will change.
add: This message is not directed at you. The woman who said, "there was no way he wasn’t the father" is responsible too. Stop making excuses for such women. Law should not protect stupidity either.
The court does not represent either side. If you give sworn testimony it is accepted by the court unless it is rebutted, check for yourself if you don't believe me. It would be up to the defendant to ask for proof in which case the court would probably issue an order for the plaintiff to produce it.
I have been through the child support process more than a few times. In each and every time, I had to hand the judge actual documents. I had to produce pay stubs, daycare statements, medical care statements. They would not go buy what figures I wanted to say in a sworn testimony. My ex had to hand over his bank statements, tax records, lease, vehicle titles, etc.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
