I really don’t know when everyone will finally understand the reality of the game of child support. When will people see that this has very little to do with actually supporting children and much more with punitive measures against men and fathers. When will people get it?
The National Parents Organization stated in one of their posts:
We all understand child support, right? When two people have sex, both know they may produce a child. And if a child is conceived and carried to term, both Mom and Dad are under a legal obligation to support little Andy or Jenny. That’s partly because adults should be responsible for the consequences of their own actions, partly because it takes money to support a child and partly because the state doesn’t want to do the job. Indeed, at least in the Anglo-American world, the very concept of child support originated in England about 400 years ago solely to remove from the populace the onus of caring for “bastards.” Prior to that, single women who bore children could leave them at the local orphanage or work house, from which time they’d be supported (and none to opulently) by the people of the parish. Think Oliver Twist.
Soon enough, it was considered right and proper that men who fathered said children should be made to pay for them. That was based on the notion that the mothers were innocents who had been defiled by unscrupulous and uncaring men who wanted nothing but to “have their way” with the women and then flee. If any of that sounds like the laws on child support today, it’s no surprise. Essentially every assumption made by those laws is based on the idea that every man who fathers a child is dead-set on having nothing to do with it, evidence to the contrary be damned.
Still, the basic premise is sound; mothers and fathers should support the children they and they alone decide to bring into the world. Enter the federal government that provides incentives to states to distort that simple concept and guess what. That simple concept becomes twisted beyond recognition.
Here is yet another example of why we need to abolish child support:
AUBURN, Neb. — Bryan Sheffield has found out that when it comes to child support disputes, a canceled check isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.
The 32-year-old disabled military veteran who served in the Iraq War finds himself squeezed by a bureaucratic vise that may eventually land him in jail.
That’s because Sheffield refuses to pay the $11,000 in child support the State of Nebraska says he owes.
He already paid it, he insists.
As proof, he offers bank printouts of 20 canceled checks. Each $536 check says “child support” in the memo line. Each carries the signature of his ex-wife on the back.
Yet officials with the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services said the canceled checks aren’t enough. They told Sheffield that only a judge or his former wife can credit him for the payments, because they were made directly to her instead of through the state’s child support payment center.
The attorney for Sheffield’s ex-wife sides with the state, saying judges routinely sort through child support matters.
Cases like Sheffield’s, where the noncustodial parent pays support directly to the custodial parent, are rare but not unheard of, Nebraska officials say. But Sheffield’s quandary illustrates why they urge that all support payments be made through the state’s center, which processes nearly 2 million payments annually.
Sheffield, who lives in a rented farmhouse near Auburn, Neb., says he can’t get a receipt from his ex-wife, nor can he afford an attorney to go back to court.
He has sought help from his state senator and the governor, to no avail.
In the meantime, state officials have taken steps to force payment of the $11,000. They filed paperwork to intercept tax refunds he might be owed and will block any attempt to get a passport. The state has the authority to go after his credit rating, his driver’s license and, if necessary, his freedom.
So be it, he says.
“At least I’d get a public defender and get my day in court.”
Auburn attorney Louie Ligouri, who represents Sheffield’s ex-wife, said allegations such as Sheffield’s are routinely decided by judges.
“My client hasn’t done anything improper. I haven’t done anything improper,” said Ligouri, who otherwise declined to comment on the matter.
Messages left with Sheffield’s former wife, Clarinda Cook, were not returned.
Read more HERE
10 comments for “How to pay child support and STILL face prison time”