NEWS: No Holiday for Sleazebags

CULTURE: No Holiday for Sleazebags

Don't worry, baby, I know: being a father can be tough. Sometimes you just can't handle the pressure, not to mention all those troublesome financial responsibilities. Maybe what you need is to get away from it all, am I right? Run away for a little while, just across a few leagues of international waters. Maybe you need a vacation. You'd like that, wouldn't you?

Yeah, well, maybe someone else would like you to man up and pay your child support. That's the reasoning behind a pretty great recent passport requirement being reinforced this summer.

It's pretty simple, really: you don't want to support your babies in even the most basic detached capacity, that's fine. But then clearly you ought not to have the money to be spending on travel, either. No child support, no passport. All you have to do to restore your good standing and win back your traveling rights, however, is to bring that outstanding balance back down to zero. I have to admit, I'm not much of a law buff overall, but I love to see it implemented so creatively to bring on some sweet, sweet justice. It seems to be working exceedingly well, too -- guys may not like to pay for their children, but when it comes to career or leisure, some things cannot be compromised.

It truly is amazing, to put it mildly, considering that money can sometimes mean the difference between a getting-by life and having to be on assistance. There are other ways that the money can be collected (docked from pay, for example, or lifted helpfully out of state lottery winnings) but apparently the passport mandate is exceedingly effective. Not that it should necessarily be surprising: it's easy for responsibility to get lost in the shuffle, but everyone wants a vacation.


_DictionaryGirl_ apologizes for the lack of geekery in today's article, but some things are just too irksome to pass up.

Wow. Good article, DG!

Haha... hahaha but seriously, how is daddy going to cross the border into Mexico to buy drugs and drink tequila from the navel of his favourite child prostitute?

I must say though DG, I enjoy your articles. For better or worse, they're usually the most comment worthy.

Although I do wonder if this applies for people who have already set up an arrangement regarding arrears with the ex spouse.

I know a guy, and his wife ran off with the kid and was un-findable for a long time. Once everything was finally settled, including the divorce decree, he was responsible for payments for the time in between. (mutually agreed upon by the two) So now he just sends an extra amount of money in with his normal chsp payments.

Or for people who need to work out of country. I mean, it is kind of hard to pay child support at all if you can't do your job.

What if you're currently paying your child support as well as the arrearage in accordance with the law, such as is the case with a "reformed" father?

Does this make it right then to punish the father for doing the right thing because he owes "x" amount?

It's not that difficult to owe $2,500 in arrearages. It usually takes a long time for a child support order to be written and reach the court system. By that time, even though the father doesn't owe any child support yet, he suddenly is presented with a bill for that amount or more. How exactly is this fair?

Parental parity is really the way to go. Many fathers get screwed by the court system because they're not treated fairly. Somehow the mother is deemed a "better parent" because she is a "traditional caregiver" or perhaps because the "bond is too strong between mother and child". The father may want joint custody but is unable to obtain it due to the laws in his State. Many frustrated fathers simply leave the State and add to the problem of unpaid child support.

Everyone probably already knows that the best parent is both parents. Unfortunately, many jaded people don't see it that way, so the problem gets worse and worse and both parents and children are punished in the end.

This law looks like an awesome idea. With any awesome idea that is going to be based in reality, however, I do have a couple issues. My concern is twofold:

1) Not having reasonable exceptions and thusly punishing the innocent
2) The possiblity of retaliation from asshats who do owe the money and see their former partner as "at fault" for inconveniencing them

i have set up pay plans with mommy but when it come to the state not being able to charge you an extra 8% on your money owed they get pissed at you and say that your whole pmnt should be sent to them and in this case i over payed working the pmnt options with mommy and the state court orderd more money to be taken out of my check i have no problem with that but Why????????????? does the state get to keep the 8% on the money owed when it should go to the kid and the pmnt should be lowerd to the nomal amount as set by the court now the fee for the lawyer is more than the money owed on the back support to . TO ALL MEN YOU HAD NO PROBLEM SPENDING THE MONEY TO GET HER IN THE SACK SO YOU SHOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM PAYING FOR THE KID AND IF YOU DONT LIKE THAT WELL THATS LIFE

ARE THEY CHARGEING YOU 8% AS WELL?

Complete, coherent sentences are your friend.

Oh, yes. It really makes it easy to pay back the child support, too. *sarcasm*

The judge on my case was actually quoted in the newspaper stating that he wished that he could waive the interest, but it is completely beyond his control.

Non-custodial parents have a bad rap in this country. The media portrays them as the "scum of the Earth". It is this perception that destroys families and the bond between parent and child.

I've never had to pay child support, but I have been unable to afford to travel to a job to earn money. There seems to be a potential catch 22 here for any parent who is behind on payments, yet needs that passport in order to earn the money to make those payments.

Wait, y'all have to pay interest on back child support? Who does the interest go to?

Wow. Just wow.

For all the bad press that deadbeat dads get in this country, y'all sure got their backs. Here's a news flash, this law only applies to parents in arrears that have been reported to and investigated by the state who are then certified by the federal government and need a new or renewal passport. About the rarest of fucking circumstances but hey, let's all worry about how "unfair" that might be to daddy.

I don't think anyone here thinks that deadbeat dads are win.

How is it 'rare' that a person has been reported to the state for arrears and would need a passport?

I think a good rule of thumb regarding one's own children is:

Out of sight, out of your mind.

People always seem to get upset about not having custody of their children. I have at least a little bit of respect for every non-custodial parent, even the one's that are clearly too incompetent to be parents. Even they have feelings. Also I believe many of the non-custodial parents that are disinterested in their children are probably "erasing" the angst that they used to have joint custody and now do not, only they are doing it incorrectly. I do agree that there is a lot more language available to demonize non-custodial parents than there is to support them. Somehow we've gotten overly polarized by custody battles, even if we have never been in one, and simply ignore individual responsibility to children's welfare as the goal. Pointing fingers isn't really a form of child support like cooperation and understanding is.

I will be the first to admit that I am not a non-custodial parent. I do dread the idea though. I'd rather get divorced before having kids, and I have. It was the only choice I had. I wouldn't lie to myself about that.

No, but people sure are racking their brains for bizarre and improbable "unfair" circumstances.

Well, let's see. Most arrearages never get reported to the state for collection. Most arrearages never reach $2500. Most people who are in arrearage and have been reported to the state for collection and are in arrears to the tune of $2500 are not the victims of circumstance. Most people never need passports. Most people who genuinely need them already have one, and they're good for ten years. So, yeah, pretty fucking rare.

Sure there might be some guy somewhere who works on oil pipelines and ends up in some bureaucratic fuckup that lasts for months or years and is too stupid to take what he owes and put it aside and his passport expires and he needs it to go work on oil rigs in Qatar, but really that's not what happens here. What happens is guys put their assets in the new wife's name and make money under the table, or move around so that the courts can't catch up with them and then all of a sudden they want to go to Cancun

The only things I see posted here are actually fairly legitimate questions, I don't see anyone really 'reaching' for explanations. In fact, the only things I see anyone stating is that not everyone owes because they are a deadbeat, some people have already addressed arrears and made arrangements for payment, and some people have to travel for work.

It is actually very possible for a person to owe back child support in amounts over $2500 for reasons other than being a deadbeat. Hell, we show as having arrears because we didn't have documentation for every penny given for child support before arrangements were finally made through the state. And even with her stating and swearing before court that we already paid X amount of money, without receipt, we had nothing. Our mistake, but it doesn't make my husband a fucking deadbeat.

source

Maybe it is just the class/culture I am more familiar with, but I don't know a lot of people stashing money with a new wife and living it up in Mexico. I see more issues with guys not being told that a baby is theirs until the kid is 5, and having half of their paycheck taken for arrears. Of course, none that I can think of would likely need a passport, so I guess you have me there. But travel isn't necessarily always for fun or even work. This is a nation of immigrants, and families aren't always stateside.

Pretty much all I am saying is that just like the majority of laws and rules in this country, some people end up getting screwed by the system.

No, most of them are screwed for being stupid. Don't contest paternity in court if someone you were fucking ends up with a kid. That's stupid. Do the test yourself and pay the $800. It takes a month and then you'll know. Don't fuck people and disappear so completely that you can fail to notice that you have a child for five years. I can't be the only one who runs into my ex at the grocery store. Don't say, well, I don't have a court order, so I'm not paying shit for two years until the divorce is final. That's stupid.

This is really simple, basic, grown up stuff. If you spilt up and you have kids, you look at the tables and figure out what you owe, and you pay by check. You don't wait for a final custody and support order, or a filiation order, or for the state to get involved. Do those two simple things and you will avoid 99.9% of these problems, because the reason there are state collection arms and penalties for arrearages is that kids need to fucking eat, even if there's no court order, and having to set up a bureaucracy and involve the courts in every little detail is an incredibly expensive waste of resources.

Sometimes I feel like I am one of the few grown-ups on this site (reprobate obviously excepted). Anyone who fails to support their children is the lowest of the low and I have zero concern for them.

It is so funny that you assume the father is the one running and disappearing in all of these cases. That women never get pregnant and take off, or deny to you that you are the father and then have some other schmuck raise your kid for 5 years until they break up.

Or that when a woman leaves, she always leaves a forwarding address and a way to contact her. And that anyone will help you track her down.

That she will stay in one state long enough to actually get any type of child support payments set up through the state. Or that once you can finally pin her ass down in court, you are told that what you have been paying isn't what the court wants you to pay.

Shit fucking happens. Pinning every situation down to the dad being the fuckup, the loser, the one who doesn't want to take care of his kids is fucking bullshit.

Gah. I don't even know why I let this aggravate me. Personal pet peeve, if you will.

Dads who don't take care of their kids suck. Moms who don't take care of their kids suck. Sometimes shit happens and life gets screwy and stuff goes wrong, but it doesn't necessarily mean that all dads that owe arrears owe them because they are scumbags.

That was all I really was trying to say.

You've both got very valid points. Nothing is as black and white as "if the father owes arrears then he's a fuck up" but at the same time, the bitterness that can be involved in a custody battle is the height of human indignity. As a 7 year old I watched my parents duke it out in court for 2 years for custody. In the end, the judge settled the matter with one simple question to my father, "is she a good mother?" and when my father answered "yes, she is" that was the end of it. If he'd been that honest with himself in the beginning instead of making life miserable for my mother out of spite then it would have save everyone involved a lot of emotional and financial scarring.

That being said, my father paid his child support right up until the day i turned 21 at which time I received a letter saying "I've paid my dues" and that was the last communication we had with each other. So just paying your child support doesn't make you a good father either... I'd rather see a father who didn't pay a cent in child support but who supports his children emotionally and developmentally than a father who simply forks over a % of his pay cheque and feels he's done the right thing by his child.

DhD, I'm under the impression that the vast majority of cases like this involve dads who don't pay, rather than moms who disappear.

Also, since most Americans do not have a passport and they only renew every 10 years this would seem to affect a small percentage of people at most.