OT Next time they talk about deadbeat dads

Man jailed for not supporting kids that aren't his.

formatting link
Cracking down on deadbeat dads is always a popular political topic but who are the cracking down on. Are they cracking down on people that pay their child support and are not behind? Yes, they are. I have been taken to court several times by the Illinois Department of Public Aid Child Support Enforcement simply because they can't calculate the support amount correctly. When I get to court, the States Atty already has their mistake figured out and I don't even have to appear before the judge. Then anywhere from 2 weeks to a year or so later it happens again. The last time, they skipped the court process and ordered my employer to withold for arrearage. It took 8 months for them to have the additional witholdings stopped and they sent papers to my ex that they determined that it wasn't their fault and she owed me all that money back.

So, if you hear a politician talking about cracking down on deadbeat dads, ask them if they are going to stop cracking down on those who pay their child support.

RogerN

Reply to
RogerN
Loading thread data ...

This is not the first time I hear that our Child Support Enforcement is a very sorry mess, a stupid and mean organization.

Reply to
Ignoramus23050

I would think that you could sue for false arrest, defamation of character and all sorts of things if you could afford it which is likely the the case.

Wes

Reply to
Wes

I talked to an attorney about it one time and they said I would have to prove that they were taking me to court to be malicious. I guess I can't sue them for being incompetent. After they ordered withholding from my employer, I sent them proof right away that I was not behind. Months later they threatened to take my income tax return and I sent them the proof that I was not behind once again by certified mail. I ended up calling their office at the state capitol and I got ahold of someone that was very helpful and got the witholding stopped. Being ahead in support has gotten them to leave me alone so hopefully I won't hear from them again.

I just thought it was bad that they do such a poor job but are given the authority to order witholding without even giving the non-custodial parent a chance to prove they are not behind on the support payments. I was under the mistaken idea that if I paid the child support that they would leave me alone.

RogerN

Reply to
RogerN

The mistaken inpression you were under was that your Ex wouldn't f*ck with you Roger. She's the one filing the complaints.

JC

Reply to
John R. Carroll

If you are harmed, you are harmed. As much as a I hate tort, the purpose of tort is to make one that is aggrieved whole. You were harmed.

Did that attorney happen to practice in the same county that you were going to sue? There tends to be a good old boys club in these things.

You need to talk to someone that doesn't make the bulk of his or her living in your jurisdiction.

Wes

Reply to
Wes

No, she was on public aid for a while and later had a medical card for the kids. That gets them involved and they screw up everything from there. When I got a new job she took me back to court for more money and told the judge that public aid kept mailing her that I owed her money. The judge asked her if I was behind on my payments. She said she didn't thinks so but public aid kept telling her that I was. The Judge said that was not unusual. Even the Judge knew that the Dept of Public Aid falsely accused people of being behind on payments.

RogerN

Reply to
RogerN

This is the time to seriously consider working for yourself and getting paid under the table as much as possible.

First get together with your ex in a quiet location and tell her to cease and desist or you'll quit your job and take one at minimum wages. That should get her her panties in a twist and perhaps straighten her out.

If you can show that she maliciously files claims of late payment perhaps you could file a tort suit. All you would have to do is prove you made payments on time and that her actions cost you money.

Wolfgang

Reply to
wfhabicher

You are full of it Roger and playing with the truth is the reason you Bible beaters are scoffed at by anyone with a brain. Here is what you said - and it's the truth:

"she took me back to court for more money " In other words, she signed and filed a complaint.

She took you back to court. You and your ex are two of a kind. She wants to get her child support twice and you want to figure out how tp commit insurance fraud.

Putting fathers in jail for non payment of child support never made sense to me BTW. Neither, however, did blaming my difficulties on others. You are the guy that knocked her up didn't you?

JC

Reply to
John R. Carroll

"This is the time to seriously consider working for yourself and getting paid under the table as much as possible."

"First get together with your ex in a quiet location and tell her to cease and desist or you'll quit your job and take one at minimum wages. That should get her her panties in a twist and perhaps straighten her out."

"If you can show that she maliciously files claims of late payment perhaps you could file a tort suit. All you would have to do is prove you made payments on time and that her actions cost you money."

Wolfgang, I haven't any support issues - or children for that matter.

Reply to
John R. Carroll

Since the divorce, I have been back to court several times. Twice she took me to court to get the CS raised when I got a different job making better money. IDPA (Illinois Department of Public Aid) took me to court other times saying I was behind on my payments. She knew I wasn't behind on my payments because the payments came out of my paycheck before I ever received it.

I don't want to figure out ho to commit insurance fraud. I don't think she wanted to get her child support twice either, at least she never attempted to.

Probably on 2 of the 3 kids, the 3rd one doesn't look like the other two. All I want to do is pay my child support and be left alone. I don't see that IDPA taking me to court when I'm up to date with my child support has anything to do with blaming my difficulties on others.

RogerN

Reply to
RogerN

IL child support, though, is pretty mild, I think that 25% of aftertax income for two kids, and 30% for three, if I recall correctly.

Reply to
Ignoramus23050

For my 3 kids it's 32% after tax plus I have to provide health insurance for them. On my income I get ~$450 for my household (me, my wife, and my son) and the child support is a little over $200 per week. My wife lost her job when the factory she was working at closed down. My kids have to work after school if they want money but my ex bought herself a sport car and many other luxuries. Since her income is only half of what I make, I can't figure out how she can help support the kids and afford a sport car for herself. Oh, maybe that's why the kids have to work after school. My oldest daughter told me that she and her friends figured out long ago that their mother is spending their support money on herself.

My oldest daughter is 19 and out of school so I could get her taken off of CS if I wanted to go to court. But sometimes I get overtime and I don't think the support would lower very much anyway. Her sister is 18 and will graduate HS in 2009 but is planning to attend college. The youngest daughter just turned 16 so I have a few years to go with HS and college.

Basically they want to crack down if fathers don't pay their child support but they don't care if the mother uses the money for the children or not.

RogerN

Reply to
RogerN

I forgot to mention something else that I think is unfair. I don't get to claim any of the child support on my taxes. So, 32% of my income goes to my

3 daughters and I am taxed as if I don't pay a dime in CS and don't get to claim those children a dependants.

What would be fair is if I claimed the CS as an expense, the ex claimed it as income, but the ex got to claim all the kids. That's fair because that is actually how it is. But that's not how it's taxed, it is taxed as if I don't pay CS and she doesn't receive CS.

RogerN

Reply to
RogerN

That's why it is called 32% after tax.

You would be far worse off in California.

Reply to
Ignoramus23050

RogerN, it could be worse. If you were a billionaire Kirk Kerkorian in California, you would be forced to pay your ex-wife from a 28 day marriage, $320,000 PER MONTH of child support, for a child who is not even yours. That might make you appreciate your current situation.

i
Reply to
Ignoramus23050

Yeah, it seem no mater what, there's always someone worse off and there's always someone better off. I'm not complaining about the amount of child support, it's just that I pay it and I still get taken to court due to other peoples mistake.

Personally, I think Kirk Kerkorian should hire someone to severely beat the crap out of all involved in causing his situation. He has to pay for their BS, they should pay too. Perhaps if the judge was in the hospital for a few months he'd think twice about ordering child support from someone that isn't the childs parent.

RogerN

Reply to
RogerN

You were under the mistaken impression you are innocent until proven guilty, a concept discarded by the govt ;(

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

** Posted from
formatting link
**
Reply to
nick hull

Roger,

I strongly suspected that your ex is partying on your dime... We have friends in a similar boat as you and have heard many tales.

See if you can get a job that pays gross or under the table. Your ex's kids are old enough to look after themselves.

Check if you can sue her under tort law. Don't take this crap lying down!

Wolfgang

Reply to
wfhabicher

Something that hasn't been mentioned is the employer link. Just because CS is withheld from your check doesn't mean it has been sent to the state. Companies get in a bind and don't forward taxes and CS.

Next time ask your employer for the deposit slips for the payments in question. Maybe they were sent in late.

Reply to
Andy Asberry

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.