Ramblings of the Pueblo Native

News and views on the 719 set.

$30 to $40? Damn he got off easy!

Child Support Payments Taken From Wrong Man

Of course I’m joking with that headline, but compared to how much they take out of my paycheck each and every two weeks, it’s relatively tame. Still, a penny unearned is a penny unearned. I think Mr. Garcia also learned what bureaucrats and cockroaches have in common: it takes the light (flashlight or publicity) to really get them moving. So keep publicizing those tales to the press. It only takes one brick to bring the whole thing tumbling down on them.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Advertisements

December 9, 2007 Posted by | child support, Ricardo Garcia, Texas | Leave a comment

No, here’s where you’re ‘100 percent wrong’

Give gift of child support at holidays – Roanoke.com

E-mail sent to Ms. Flowers. And as always, if she replies, I publish.

Ms. Flowers:

I caught your column regarding child support and thought I would clarify where you are ‘100 percent wrong’.
“In 2006, “tax intercepts” collected $33 million from federal returns and $2 million from the state. The money was forwarded to the children to whom it was owed.”
Not if they were on welfare it wasn’t. In those cases, the majority of the child support went back to the state, not the child. And we’re not even looking at the interest and penalty the state profits from using children as skillfully as a modern day Fagan. Don’t just believe me, check out http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=14474
And we look at the picture that you paint of greedy men evading child support (and if you want another idea for a column, check out why the percentage is 88/12 in terms of child support. If I said that something was 88/12 black/white, wouldn’t you want to know why that was). You don’t seem to even mention the parents who were jailed or sued:

If you’re in Pennsylvania, do support this man!

Man vows to fight paternity statute | Wilkes-Barre News | timesleader.com – The Times Leader

Mark Spaid is fighting a centuries-old doctrine known as presumption of paternity. Under this doctrine, a child is presumed to be that of the parents if it is born during a marriage so that “no child shall be made a bastard”.

And up to the modern era, the doctrine made sense to a certain degree. With the only accurate test at the time being a blood test, you could have arguments about paternity go on and on and on with no real ending to it.

Of course, this is pre-DNA and pre genetic testing that can establish a child’s paternity to 99.999 percent certainty. Yet like several other areas, the law has not caught up yet. In fact, in this area, the law has not even gotten out of the starting gate. One could make very wild speculations about the reasoning (irrational things like the state’s interest in a constant revenue flow), but the fact remains that this needs to be changed and people like Mr. Spaid should be applauded for their efforts.

Powered by ScribeFire.

November 25, 2007 Posted by | child support, Mark Spaid, paternity fraud, Pennsylvania | Leave a comment

Hilarious! Just absolutely hilarious

TheSpoof.com : Government to sell banking details of child support claimants to highest bidder to raise extra cash funny satire story

Warning: this is entirely satire. However, do not pass this along to any CSE workers you know. It might give them ideas, and to this lot ideas are like dynamite: dangerous and best kept from the hands of idiots. I think I just found a new site to bookmark, and so should you!

Powered by ScribeFire.

November 23, 2007 Posted by | child support, satire, United Kingdom | Leave a comment

Another slam against men

Do Men Have the Right to an Abortion? | RHRealityCheck.org

In typical fashion, Ms. Marconette mocks and then quickly writes off the notion that men have any sort of “choice” when it comes to terminating their parenthood. Let’s go down this point one by one:

1. Ms. Marconette focuses merely on the physical aspects of abortion (i.e “It’s based in the assumption that all people have that basic right to control their own body and their own fertility.”). Yes, Ms. Marconette, and fertility doesn’t stop there. Men have been granted the right to abortions before–in terms of being able to terminate implantation of a frozen egg. By the way, those weren’t exactly “walks in the park”
2. Ms. Marconette ticks off the ways in which men can control their own parenting (“Men are not being blocked by anti-choice protesters, by state laws, by federal laws or by judgmental pharmacists from getting access to the tools to control their own fertility, from condoms to vasectomies”). While failing to note that women have all of those options, if not more (IUD, the pill, the patch, the female condom, etc). Plus, women have two additional options not easily available to men:

  • They can physically abort easier than men.
  • They can either place the child up for adoption or “abandon” the child at a hospital fireplace or other designated stations (try this: have a man deliver a baby up to any of those places and say that he wants to give up his child. If he doesn’t come away in handcuffs, I will definitely be surprised.).
  • We therefore have two options that men are not entitled to, yet Ms Marconette mocks these men as whiners when they try to exercise the only option that they have when they are denied the “advantages of living with the family” (ie. being in a meaningful role for their children other than bank account and ATM).

    I would encourage you to go there and comment for Ms. Marconette, as I have done in the example below:

    After reading this column I have to thank you. For far too long I have wondered about what example to give people when they want to know what fathers face from the family court. Your pure, unbridled vitriol and hatred directed towards men who you pathetically term “whiners” is a beautiful example, and for that I thank you. This is one column that I will definitely keep as a permalink for my readers to show them. I am almost inclined to cite this as an example of extremist feminism and matriarchism in this country, but I wouldn’t want you to think you are more important than you really are. Thanks for the hatred and the half-cocked opinions.

    Powered by ScribeFire.

    November 21, 2007 Posted by | child support, Marconette, RHRealityCheck.org | Leave a comment

Pimping to pay off the CSE “chlid pimps”

Man who owes more than $70K in child support made some payments by pimping

All jokes aside, you can’t do that. I would condone dealing drugs to pay off child support before I condoned this garbage (in other words, a day after eternity). And you certainly can’t pay off that debt by bullying, assaulting, and intimidating others.

As an aside, I wonder how many other people have been driven to illegal activities in order to pay off their child support? Not that it’s okay, but you wonder if somebody is pushing dope or stealing in order to make those payments. Well, maybe it is justified. After all, it is the “best interests of the children.”

Powered by ScribeFire.

November 20, 2007 Posted by | child support, prostitution, Washington | Leave a comment

Where’s the motivation for the government?

Reform child support to encourage parents to pay — baltimoresun.com

While I undoubtedly say Amen to all of what Mr. Cohen says, he must realize that is an uphill battle. The state has a sword of Damocles to dangle over the head of non custodial parents and particularly fathers. Oppose them, and you look like you are opposing children. Do you think the state will willingly give that up? If you had those powers to collect any other type of debt, would you willingly give them up? I don’t think you would, and it looks like we’re going to have to pry that power out of the CSE’s cold, dead hands.

Powered by ScribeFire.

November 17, 2007 Posted by | child support, Child Support Enforcement Agency, Maryland | Leave a comment

Let justice ring

Macomb Daily : Dad not guilty of felony child support charge 11/17/07
l

Too often I read about this or that father being sentence to two, three years of hard labor (which really improves their odds of paying child support, by the way), so it’s nice to hear that one father was actually acquitted of these charges. And I don’t really like to do negative after negative story without breaking it up.

Corey Flener found the prospect of four years in the slam and a fine lifted when a jury decided the state had failed to prove him guilty of “felony child support” (I love that phrasing. I’m sure what they meant was felony non payment of child support but the other has more meaning to me as well).

Keep in mind that this doesn’t completely get him out of the way of jail time. He still faces a civil show-cause hearing (where the burden is much lighter for the state) for failure to pay two $2,300 lump sum amounts. But at least the felony mark is off the table for now.

The action was brought by the Michigan State Attorney General’s office as a crackdown on child support. Glad to see Cox’s still burning that midnight oil.

Powered by ScribeFire.

November 17, 2007 Posted by | child support, criminal contempt, Michigan | Leave a comment

CSE workers see child support as their own: no bleep, Sherlock

Woman says she stole to pay for casino trips – News – The Olympian – Olympia, Washington

As I say on these stories when they come up, you have to wonder whether these are rogue caseworkers or whether they’re just taking what they learn on the job to the next level. I wonder if she tipped any single mothers or fathers up there. You could say that’s child support. It doesn’t help the children it’s meant for, but then again when does the interest and penalty help the children either.

Powered by ScribeFire.

November 16, 2007 Posted by | child support, Washington | Leave a comment

Another bit of good news for fathers on child support

Broward mayor won’t pay support for child he fathered 20 years ago — South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com

Surprisingly out of Florida, a father will not have to pay for a child that he fathered 20 years ago because the mother already collected child support from the presumed father. A magistrate found that Broward County Mayor Josephus Eggelleton won’t have to pay for a child that he acknowledged as his.

There are two thoughts out of this.  The first is that at least the system found that a mother can’t dip her hand in the piggy bank twice for child support.  That’s good.  And I love how the lawyer can say with a straight face that the child shouldn’t be punished:

Sanders’ attorney, Robert Barrar, said Tuesday he intends to appeal Beilly’s decision. “The child should be entitled to compensation. The child shouldn’t be penalized for what happened all those years ago,” he said.

And exactly how is not paying your client, the mother, because she already got paid “punishing” the child. If anything, the child was just as punished by your client not revealing to her son who his father was or might be. Why isn’t the child suing the mother for withholding that little bit of information.

I said that there were two thoughts on this one. The second thought is as to the man who paid for the child support. Shouldn’t he be compensated? After all, even if you allow for the fact that somebody could have more than two parents, that would mean that his duty to support his child should have been halved. And if he should be compensated, then by whom? By the mayor, or by the mother?

Powered by ScribeFire.

November 16, 2007 Posted by | child support, Florida | Leave a comment