visitation with no child support?

[Stats]

Stats

[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.
 
 
 
 

[Momfortwo]

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.

 
But the CP is under no obligation at all to let the other parent off the hook for financially supporting a child that both parents created. 
 
BTW, that last sentence of yours is complete BS. 
 
 

[ocean]

If you receive SS benefits for your child you have to justify the money each year so child support could be the same way. The form they send is very general but you have to write down how much money you spent on the child (not itemized) but total amount for raising them AND how much you saved in a bank account (you need to put if it is in child's name, saving, checking)

You need to have a consequence for not paying and right now jail is the LAST resort. The warn you first, then take away your driving license, most times give you every opportunity to make a payment plan with the courts to get back your license, take away any other professional license, take your tax money to pay it, take money from bank accounts. IF the person still is not paying THEN they threaten jail. No, it wont get them to pay BUT it is a punishment for not paying. Why should only the CP fund raising their child? (now the child support formulas is a whole other battle to make it fair but both parents should be raising the child)

[gemini3]

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.

You're correct that the original reason for child support orders was to reduce the burden on welfare.  HOWEVER, CS orders are now being applied and enforced regardless of whether or not there is a burden on the state welfare $'s.  A CP could be making $100,000 a year and the NCP be jailed for non-payment of CS.  Why has this happened?  Because the states saw an opportunity to collect additional $'s from the federal government in the form of incentives for collecting CS.  These were originally established to incent the states to collect CS (because it's a state issue) so there was less burden on welfare (which comes from the federal budget).  It was never intended to apply to all cases.  So I don't think that taxes would be drastically increased were there no CS orders, because the percentage of CS cases where one party would be on welfare is relatively small.

I think it's wrong to assume that any person who doesn't get CS would automatically go on welfare.  Most CP's are just as able to find gainful employment as the NCP.  Being a CP does not preclude you from having to work.  Most intact families are two income families, why should divorcing your husband give you the go ahead to quit your job and rely solely on his income?  I think, if that's what you want to do, you should stay married.

[gemini3]

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.

Actually, it is a two parent family.  There are still two parents, and still a child who they are BOTH responsible for.   

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.

So, you're saying that you think that the CP wouldn't be gunning to have the NCP arrested if he would just go to court and ask for a modification?  I doubt it.  Someone who is vindictive enough to stage a set up so that the other party ends up in jail, and their child doesn't have to go to the other persons house anymore, is very unlikely to do that.

The NCP is totally in the wrong here and should be arrested.

You're entitled to your opinion.  My opinion differs.  I don't think that anyone should be jailed for non-payment of a debt.  You don't go to jail if you don't pay your credit cards, or your mortgage, or your car payment.  There is no due process when you are jailed for non-payment of CS, which violates the 14th amendment.  We did away with debtors prisons back in the 1800's.  Two states constitutions prohibit incarceration for non-payment of a civil debt.

I don't think much thought is being given to what being thrown in jail does to a persons life.  While you're sitting in jail you can't work, and therefore are unable to pay any of your debts.  You stand to lose your job (if you have one), lose your residence, and possibly your means of transportation and posessions.  Even a short term in jail can have significant negative affect on a person.  It is a viscous cycle that is extremely difficult to detach from.  There is also significant impact on the child, who won't see her father who has been consistently involved in her life.  Sheltering her from seeing her father arrested will not shelter her from the impact of everything else that follows.   

Do I think that he should be helping to support the child?  Yes.  But I don't think that setting him up to be thrown in jail is the answer.  You don't seek to destroy someone's life and a child's relationship with one of their parents because that parent isn't conforming to what you want them to do.  I think most parents would gladly take on additional financial burden it meant that their children would grow up happy, healthy and emotionally stable.  Children who are deprived of a relationship with one of their parents are at risk for severe social problems - teenage pregnancy, drug use, delinquency, domestic violence.  The list goes on.  Studies have shown that even a parent that is less than ideal is better than no parent at all.  Yet there are people who would put money before their child's psychological health.  That's what I think this poster is doing and I do not agree with it.

[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.

But the CP is under no obligation at all to let the other parent off the hook for financially supporting a child that both parents created. 

BTW, that last sentence of yours is complete BS. 

 
It's BS? Why? I personally (and maybe I'm flawed for this) I would rather my children spend time with their father than receive a letter from jail. I'd rather forgive the past dept on CS than know dad will forever be paying what he can just to make up that back CS amount. I'd rather my kids know that mom is a good hearted woman and DIDN'T try to throw dad in jail, or financially bankrupt him.
 
I have forgiven past due CS. I did it becasue I knew dad was working 2 jobs and trying to survive. The CS was hindering him being able to meet halfway for our son, and he wasn't able to meet his household obligations. I'd rather let go of a few thousand dollars. But hey, that's just me. I'm flawed. I'm one of the moms fostering a positive relationship with my son and his father. Wait I think it's called co-parenting, or adulthood, or decent human being. Something along those lines.
 
On a side note I just asked my son what he would think if I had his father arrested for failure to pay child support. His answer "that would be messd up mom. I don't think I could forgive something like that" out of the mouth of a 16 year old.

[ocean]

You are able to support the child on your own....not everyone is like you. Some people rely on the money to help pay for the bills that it was meant to help with. Children should be supported by both parents (maybe not equally but it is both responsibilities.)

[Momfortwo]

This isn't a two parent family (substitute HOUSEHOLD, btw, you really are being deliberately obtuse) 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.

Actually, it is a two parent family.  There are still two parents, and still a child who they are BOTH responsible for.   

 
BOTH being the operative word here.  BTW, they aren't a family anymore.  My kids have 2 families.  One with me, one with their dad.  I am not a part of my ex's family anymore nor is he a part of mine.  That's what divorce is. 
 
 
 
 

[Momfortwo]

It's BS? Why? I personally (and maybe I'm flawed for this) I would rather my children spend time with their father than receive a letter from jail. I'd rather forgive the past dept on CS than know dad will forever be paying what he can just to make up that back CS amount. I'd rather my kids know that mom is a good hearted woman and DIDN'T try to throw dad in jail, or financially bankrupt him.

And that is your right to do.  Just because you make a choice doesn't mean that it is the only choice that puts the child first. 

I have forgiven past due CS. I did it becasue I knew dad was working 2 jobs and trying to survive. The CS was hindering him being able to meet halfway for our son, and he wasn't able to meet his household obligations. I'd rather let go of a few thousand dollars. But hey, that's just me. I'm flawed. I'm one of the moms fostering a positive relationship with my son and his father. Wait I think it's called co-parenting, or adulthood, or decent human being. Something along those lines.

Again, that is your choice.  Doesn't make the choice to go after and not forgive past due CS wrong or not in the best interest of the child.

On a side note I just asked my son what he would think if I had his father arrested for failure to pay child support. His answer "that would be messd up mom. I don't think I could forgive something like that" out of the mouth of a 16 year old.

And I wish that they had thrown my father in jail for not paying his child support.  His refusal to pay made it hard on all of us.  My brothers and sisters feel the same way, btw. 

It's called dealing with the consequences of not following a court order.  Just like I am teaching my kids that they have to live with the consequences of their actions (such as grounding them from their bike for a week because they rode it without their helmet, as required by the law and me).   The NCP in this case should face the consequences of his actions. 

[Momfortwo]

You're entitled to your opinion.  My opinion differs.  I don't think that anyone should be jailed for non-payment of a debt.  You don't go to jail if you don't pay your credit cards, or your mortgage, or your car payment.  There is no due process when you are jailed for non-payment of CS, which violates the 14th amendment.  We did away with debtors prisons back in the 1800's.  Two states constitutions prohibit incarceration for non-payment of a civil debt.

It is not a 14th amendment violation to jail a person for CONTEMPT OF COURT, and the NCP typically goes to court SEVERAL times before this happens.  Which is why the NCP is being jailed. 

Not following a court order can lead to a contempt charge.  And that is a jailable offense. 


"I don't think much thought is being given to what being thrown in jail does to a persons life.  While you're sitting in jail you can't work, and therefore are unable to pay any of your debts. "

So we should just not put people who don't follow the law into jail because of what it will do to their lives? 

What about how their refusal to follow the law does to other people's lives?  Doesn't that count?

BTW, the reason why jail is an option (and is for all contempt of court cases) is because of NCP's refusing to pay their child support.  At all.  Granted, this was probably not the majority.   The ones who are paying their child support typically don't have to worry about facing the consequences of contempt of court.

[Momfortwo]

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. 

 
But this NCP has never (according the OP) been unemployed or not keeping a job.  His arrears are such that he is going to go to jail because of his refusal to follow a court order.   
 
I doubt that he will get a modification downwards given that his track record can be read as being voluntary (and when it is a voluntary reduction or unemployment, it shouldn't have an impact on the amount of child support). 
 
But the courts being backlogged isn't a good excuse to put off filing a modification.  Because one thing for sure is that you won't get it if you don't ask for it.  And I really don't think that is why this particular NCP is refusing to file for a modification.  Sorry, that excuse just doesn't cut it.