Child Support Responses:

Child Support Responses..

Of all the articles I’ve written thus far, without a doubt the top-three most discussed articles have been on the issues of ‘Jealousy’, ‘Forgiveness’ and ‘Child Support’. While all e-mail is answered not until now have any of these responses been posted. However a recent questioning of the “Should Non-Custodial Parents Pay Child Support?” article brought up recurring positions that I felt would be best presented once and for all to all readers with similar concerns.

What follows below is such a response. The original sender’s identity has been masked out for sake of anonymity.

WReturn-Path:
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 10:24:10 -0800
To: xxxxxxxx@yahoo.com (Xxxxxxx)
From: “Henry V.”
Subject: Re: Child-Support

At 06:23 AM 3/13/99 -0800, you wrote:
>
>Comments: I just read your article about child support.
>While I agree that it is the duty of the parents to support their children,
>I still believe you are not in touch with the real world of custody and
>support battles.
>In one example in Australia, a man asked the child support authorities
>to reduce his paymanets as he was working 60 hours per week and
>would like to see his children on weekends.
>It was refused.
>He then outlayed $XX 000 in appeals and lost!

Dear Xxxxxxx,

As I mentioned in the article, the other side of the coin is that the laws concerning child support are neither consistent from state to state nor always fair. What I was addressing was the overwhelming moral and legal reasoning that, irregardless of all other factors.. a man has the responsibility to contribute to the support of his children. This is aside from whether their mother is rich or poor. This is aside from whether she is fair or unfair with the visitation schedules.

To put it as I heard it from a judge on someone else’s case last year, (paraphrasing); “While the delinquency of support cannot be tolerated, it does not do the children any good for BOTH parents to be irresponsible in their duties by responding with denied visitation.” So, conversely, even if one is paying their support on time, if they are not getting proper visitation due to the mother.. it does not help matters by with-holding child support, thus making the problem two-fold. A man ought to have a firm grasp on his responsibility to provide support irregardless of all other factors based simply on the fact that he loves those kids and wants to contribute to their care aside from anything he gets in return.

>Many custodial wives are in the business of asset stripping their former
partner.
>They are in the business of denying access to the children’s father.
>They are involved in adulterous relationships and have undeclared incomes.
>The law courts stop the non-custodial parents from getting proper access.
>There are many men who are driven to poverty at the expense of relatively
wealthy women.

Courts only give the right to garnish when child support becomes an ‘arrearage’, or past-due. The only men being garnished or having assets stripped are those who have had their chance to pay support and neglected it, thus instigating collection by the courts. Courts do not confiscate assets for -future- child support. As for courts denying access between father and children, the ONLY cases I have seen this happen is when the father has been shown to be violent and must be supervised during visitation. Supervised visitation is not denial of visitation, but visitation under special circumstance to protect the
child against physical or psychological manipulation.

As to men driven to poverty, I have met with such men. They fall into two categories. There are first those who have a legitimate case to have their support reduced due to loss or change of employment but neglect to take their case to court. They give up before even trying and meanwhile the original, higher support judgment goes unchanged as the arrearages just keep building up. The second group are those who are left nearly penniless because they purposely put much effort into EVADING child-support for years and when finally cornered had accrued as much as $90,000+ in back-due child support. This was no one’s fault but their own for rebelling against the court order and failing to challenge it due to a change in employment wages.

Concerning ex-spouses involved in adulterous relationships.. first of all, they are EX-spouses and now accountable for their own behavior to God, not you. There a few laws if any stating that un unmarried man or woman may not keep custody if having premarital sex. As for undeclared income, again.. too many men are too lazy to learn the system and take the time to actually prove, or Contest, these instances of unreported income or other matters and thus it never sees the inside of a courtroom. It does not take a high-paid lawyer to file a Notice of Motion on an existing support judgment. Just as a note, from the Judge’s point of view.. if you have enough money to pay an expensive lawyer to talk you out of child-support.. you therefore have enough income to be supporting your kids to some extent. Yet another small dose of reality.

>The suicide rate amongst men is highest on Father’s Day when they are
denied access by unscrupuous women.

I don’t contend the statement on suicide, but I do temper it with this other fact.. there are also a high number of missing children who will never see their mother again because the father kidnaps the kids to supposedly avoid child support. (In actuality, child-support accrual continues and the felony of Kidnapping has been committed by the non-custodial parent.) A family friend right now is trying to put her life together after her ex-husband had unsupervised visitation and diappeared with her two children more than a year ago. She has since then found out he abandoned them with distant family in El Salvador. She will never see her children again. Yes, many men blow their brains out from depression due to unscrupulous women..
but that door swings both ways every day of the week across the nation.

>I enjoy your article but this one on child support though good in intent
>lacks reality.
>Women use the system of justice to reek revenge and gain income.
>That is the modern world.
>The law doesn’t acknowledge this.
>It is the men that suffer.

Yes, there are women using the system to exact revenge on their ex-spouse. It becomes a war as I also mentioned in the article. But that still does not wash away a man’s responsibility to care for the lives he brought into this world. There are also many other women using this same system to get the support their children deserve from fathers who discard their kids like an old fad or unwanted pet. If it is the -reality- perspective you wish to see.. you must acknowledge that reality is comprised of both abusers of the system as well as those using it in a rightful manner. Through the system, many men suffer. Many women and children suffer as well. Through the same system, many men gain their visitation rights back and children get the support they need that feeds their bellies and pays the rent. Reality is not all the ‘victims’ or the ‘victors’.. but both.

>In your father’s case- what was the role of your mother?
>

In my father’s case, the role of my mother was two-fold. She consistently asked him for child-support (outside of court, no garnishments) and never got any child-support other than maybe a grand total of $300 over an 12 year period. Yet meanwhile she also never with-held visitation from him and never bad-mouthed him behind his back to his children. Even with her own children’s rights being trampled, she did not make a bad situation worse by denying visitation. I have e-mailed with men who similarly have had their visitation repeatedly denied.. and yet STILL they consistently send a check in the mail for their kids because they want to be at least in some way a part of their upbringing. These are Real Men who know the meaning of the word, ‘Responsibility’.

In light of all this, I do not view the article as unrealistic. As I also stated in the article, I do not believe a man should be driven to poverty via child support. But sadly, too many men think not having enough cash flow to support their Corvette and some bimbo qualifies as a state of ‘poverty’.. yet meanwhile their kids wear old clothes to school and eat Cup-A-Soup all week. I have little tolerance for men who -could- go to court and have their support reduced/adjusted to their income.. but instead sit on their butt crying over a beer about how hard the system is on them.

I hope that clarifies any oversights you may have missed in the article and I appreciate your honest candor.

Henry Velez
www.lifegoeson.net


Author: Reekay

Henry Velez is a writer, traveler and vlogger currently living in the Philippines. He has written extensively on social issues, relationships and travel.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *