Marrying my child's father who owes back child support on our child to our state.

[msleigh]

I know it's easier to make WIC jokes than it is to locate and reference a court case (or, hey, even a few web links to message board posts) to support your claims that there are "thousands" of cases like mine.

Yes, twenty-plus posts insisting that there are oh-so-many, many cases identical to mine -- yet, not a single example to prove this claim.

 

[CJane]

I'm sure she milked the WIC cash cow, but we won't put that in the equation.

Just because it's a pet peeve of mine... WIC is not welfare, is not administered by the same or a related agency, and is not solely income-based. One can be nowhere near low-income and still qualify for WIC.

Other than that, if he owes 10K, he's already had his tax refunds intercepted for at least 2 years, AND had "every account" he's opened be seized, he didn't pay ANYTHING for a LONG time. AND he's been dodging service, dodging other attempts to collect the debt, probably driving on a revoked license, AND been lucky to avoid criminal prosecution.

It's not like he JUST found out about this debt.

And Babymomma? You won't get cash assistance if you're married to someone who already owes the state $10K for previous cash assistance.

And that "reasonable payment plan"? That's the $500/month he was supposed to be paying all along.

You think your case is unique because you're not seeing it the same way that CSSD does. They see ONLY a baby and mother who received various types of assistance from the state BECAUSE the father of the child was not paying support. They don't care WHY he wasn't paying. They care only that THEY ensured that the child received medical care, food and clothing while his father was NOT doing so, and now, they want paid back.

You didn't want his child support, but you sure weren't standing on the steps of the welfare office, handing back the TANF or the food stamps or the medicaid card, and saying "Oh, no, seriously, I don't want this." Were you?

YOU CHOSE to accept the benefits.
YOU CHOSE to let him back into your life after he showed you for YEARS that he personally didn't give a rat's behind whether Junior had a belly full of food or not.

HE CHOSE not to care enough about his child to pay the support.
HE CHOSE to dodge the notifications and the service regarding his non-payment.

You're left with CHOOSING to believe there is something incredibly unique about your situation. And yet, there are TONS of people out there who are accepting assistance from the state because they're NOT receiving child support. TONS of people who are NOT supporting their children despite court orders telling them to. And TONS of people trying to find a "loophole" that lets them out of their neglected responsibilities by the time the comeuppance happens.

 

[Just Blue]

I know it's easier to make WIC jokes than it is to locate and reference a court case (or, hey, even a few web links to message board posts) to support your claims that there are "thousands" of cases like mine.

Yes, twenty-plus posts insisting that there are oh-so-many, many cases identical to mine -- yet, not a single example to prove this claim.

Are you so incapable that you are unable to utilize the search function? Or Google?

 

[Proserpina]

Are you so incapable that you are unable to utilize the search function? Or Google?

CC already told her to walk down to the local courthouse and go through the records.

Evidently that's not a feasible option.

I'm completely baffled as to why OP seems to think they're somehow in a unique situation of trying to dodge a LEGITIMATE child support debt.

Seriously?

 

[msleigh]

If you would have read my previous posts, you'd know that I've searched for comparable cases and have found NONE. That's why I believe my case, with its specific circumstances, is unique. That's also why I need advice.

Other posters, however, have asserted that my case isn't unique, and that there are "tons" and "thousands" of cases just like mine that they are personally aware of. Even though they make this claim (and use it as a reason why they have no interest in offering me advice), not one of these people can supply an example of a similar court case (or even a message board posting).

It irritates me that I came here for advice and was belittled and judged on a personal level. I should have read the archives before posting, though -- the people that have been rude to me have done the same to other posters, as well.

It seems to me that those peddling so-called legal "advice" around here are nothing more than lonely, bitter, egotistical, uneducated bureaucrats -- pushing paper by day, and attempting to disguise themselves as bastions of legal knowledge on the world wide web on nights and weekends. In other words, a pretty sad lot...

What a pointless waste of time.

Are you so incapable that you are unable to utilize the search function? Or Google?

 

[cyjeff]

If you would have read my previous posts, you'd know that I've searched for comparable cases and have found NONE. That's why I believe my case, with its specific circumstances, is unique. That's also why I need advice.

Other posters, however, have asserted that my case isn't unique, and that there are "tons" and "thousands" of cases just like mine that they are personally aware of. Even though they make this claim (and use it as a reason why they have no interest in offering me advice), not one of these people can supply an example of a similar court case (or even a message board posting).

It irritates me that I came here for advice and was belittled and judged on a personal level. I should have read the archives before posting, though -- the people that have been rude to me have done the same to other posters, as well.

It seems to me that those peddling so-called legal "advice" around here are nothing more than lonely, bitter, egotistical, uneducated bureaucrats -- pushing paper by day, and attempting to disguise themselves as bastions of legal knowledge on the world wide web on nights and weekends. In other words, a pretty sad lot...

What a pointless waste of time.

Fine.

You are unique.

Dad still owes the money.

Feel better?

 

[torimac]

others like you...

I have a similar case to yours since you are so intent on finding one. I was on state support for a few months after a split with my ex. I found a job as soon as I could. Because I was on support, they charged my ex support. He sees no need to pay any support and has no racked up quite a bill with the state and myself. My ex was earning around the same amount as yours and was ordered to pay $480 a month, plus half of daycare once I went back to work.

The only difference is that I am not getting back together with my ex.

And I learned my lesson. I have one child and that's all I plan on having because that's what I know I can afford. I am currently out of work, but I have enough in savings from the last few years of working to keep me afloat. I do not rely on my ex for support, but have done everything within my power, including creating a savings and going back to school full time while I was working full time, to make sure I can support myself and my child without relying on others. Including not asking the state for welfare or food stamps.

You need to grow up. Your ex needs to grow up. The bill is your ex's. He chose not to pay. If this was a car loan, student loan, he would be required to pay. Well, this was a welfare loan. He needs to pay back the amount he owes. As he let it sit without any payment for some time, it now has accrued interest. My ex has let it sit so long, the amount owed to the state is now approaching $1,000.

I can tell you, as a single person, it is possible to live in CA on 1k a month. You share housing. You eat simply. You live within your means.

If CA is too expensive, you move. When my company announced lay-offs in CA, I made plans to move to a state where my expenses would be less. It makes my savings last that much longer.

 

[CSO286]

When you applied for public assitance, you also signed paperwork agreeing to cooperate with the child support office.
They, in turn, worked to establish paternity for you child as well as obtaining an order for child support. Both you and the absent parent were servied with notices indicating the date and time of the hearing, in order to give each of time to appear. If he had appeared at the hearing he could have argued the amount the State was requesting in support, since it sounds as though neither of you did that the CSA obtained a default order, BASED on the best evidence they we able to obtain regarding NCP income.
After the default order was obtained, the courts mailed both you and your ex copies of the order, and, guess what?? In the order, it told both of you what to do if either party wished to appeal the decision of the court.
It sounds like neither of you did so.

Please answer the next question that has been asked several times: Not including the bank levies and tax refund intercepts, how much and how often did your ex make any child support payments while you were separated?

There really isn't anything unique about your case. What it boils down to is this: The state gave you cash assistance to help provide for your child. They then went after the person who SHOULD have been providing for your child for the costs they incurred.

Do a search on this forum. Use words like "PA Arrears" and "public assistance". Heck, you could even check on some of the posts I've replied to; I know I've addressed this here at east 2 or 3 times, and I've only been a member a few months.

There is no lophole to make this debt go away.
(You know what? There was a way to make this debt go away---if you had never been a publica assistance, then the child support would have been owed to you, and you could choose whether or not to forgive the past due amounts.)

 

[mistoffolees]

There really isn't anything unique about your case. What it boils down to is this: The state gave you cash assistance to help provide for your child. They then went after the person who SHOULD have been providing for your child for the costs they incurred.

The only thing that's a little unusual in this case is that she's marrying the guy.

Unfortunately, that doesn't change anything. If he were getting married to someone else, the state would still be going after him to collect the support. If SHE were marrying someone else, the state would still go after her ex to collect the money. I don't see any reason to think that those situations change simply because they are marrying each other.

Want to bet that it's a scheme to try to get out of paying and when they find out that he has to pay anyway that the marriage never happens?

 

[stealth2]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

California

I have a complicated situation and haven't been able to find any similar questions in the archives. I apologize in advance if this question has already been answered.

I am now marrying my 4 year old son's father. There was a period of time (roughly two years) in which we weren't together that I received welfare, food stamps and medical coverage for myself and our son through the state of California. During that time, my now-fiance was ordered by the state to pay $500 per month, which covered child support for me and reimbursed the state for the public assistance we were receiving. However, he did not pay this because he felt it was unfairly high based on his income at the time (which it was). So, of course it accumulated each month.

My fiance, son and myself are now living together and neither of us (nor our son) are receiving any type of public assistance, and there is no longer any form of child support order in place. We earn only enough income to afford basic living expenses in Southern California, yet my fiance is being harassed by child support services to fork over just under $10,000 in back child support payments (again, for our own son who we now support together). Last week, they seized his bank accounts and took every penny ($2,700) in his checking and savings -- money that was supposed to be for food and rent. It's to the point that we might not be able to provide for our child and ourselves *without* going on public assistance! Pretty absurd.

Everyone we talk to over the phone at child support services is incredibly rude (we have literally been "hung-up" on), unhelpful and unwilling to work out a reasonable payment plan or reduce the principle. We can't afford our own lawyers right now, which is why I am asking for advice here.

What can we do? Is there any way this debt can be lowered or excused? What's ironic is that child support services supposedly exists to "help families," yet our family is being hurt!

Help!

Thank you,
Leigh

Darlin' - the taxpayers of CA supported you and the kid when your oh so wonderful man refused to. They deserve to be repaid. Period.

Chutzpah.

 

[CSO286]

The only thing that's a little unusual in this case is that she's marrying the guy.

Unfortunately, that doesn't change anything. If he were getting married to someone else, the state would still be going after him to collect the support. If SHE were marrying someone else, the state would still go after her ex to collect the money. I don't see any reason to think that those situations change simply because they are marrying each other.

Want to bet that it's a scheme to try to get out of paying and when they find out that he has to pay anyway that the marriage never happens?

Misto--
Yeah, I kind of glossed over that because it didn't seem all that unique since I've seen that exact situation four times this year.....

And they do seem to think that because thy've reunited that when the cp forgive her portion of the arrears that the state will automatically forgive their portion. Too bad for them, it doesn't work that way. The state, and taxpayers, all still hate the idea of giving away something for nothing......

 

[ecmst12]

Yeah the only slightly unusual thing about this thread is that it's actually MOM that's posting it instead of stepmom or future stepmom. But that's just less common, not unique by any means. There is nothing unique under the sun anymore.

 

[Antigone*]

Good Morning my friends,

Don't you see it ~ Ms. leigh will be back here in no time at all once Mr. Wonderful has dumped her. She'll be crying about the money she isn't getting to support the many children she's had. And, again it will be everyone else's fault but her own.

This leach is a perfect example of the kind of people in our great state that feed off the state. In fact she'll probably keep making babies just so the state can provide.

So know that we've come to the only logical conclusion, I'd like to know if the B & G is open because it is 8:40 am and I'm needing a double

 

[callie212]

wow

You really think you're case is unique?

Maybe it's because you are focusing on the wrong things. All the things that make you think that you're unique are irrelevant.

The bottom line is that he didn't willingly pay any court ordered child support because he thought the amount was too much. Now he owes the state for it. Not only is that not unique, it is ridiculously common.

Even if the details were unique, its the bottom line that matters legally. What low-income parent paying child-support doesn't complain that they have to pay too much? Or better yet, what parent in general doesn't complain its too much to raise a child. Having a child is expensive for BOTH parents and unless the parents are very wealthy, its going to affect their standard of living. Just because you were on public assistance doesn't mean that he should'nt have had to pay child support during that time. It just makes it all that more important that he does pay because you weren't.

It doesn't matter that his income fluctuates. It doesn't matter that you are now getting married. It doesn't matter that you're just getting by now. Why does he think he shouldn't have to pay? $500 a month is not very much money, especially for an area with a high cost of living.

Why didn't he pay $300 or $200 or even $100 a month just to pay something on his monthly bill? At least then it would show that he attempted to pay what he could. Not that it would make him owe any less in the long run, but it would make his bill maybe $6,000 instead of $10,000 now. I have no sympathy for fathers (or mothers) who avoid paying ANY support for the reason the the ordered amount was too high. Pay something at least.

You say you were on state aid for about 2 years. Welfare, food stamps and medical insurance. $2,000 a month would probably be a very low estimate at what you got.

$2,000 a month for 2 years is $48,000. Your sons father is being told to pay $10,000 of that. While you were on assistance he was working. If he didn't make enough, he should have gotten another job.

Your child will be starting school soon. Move to a cheaper area so he can afford the bill. Then work while he's in school. You don't have a chance on fighting this.

 

[mistoffolees]

Even if the details were unique, its the bottom line that matters legally. What low-income parent paying child-support doesn't complain that they have to pay too much?

As I said before, I'd be willing to bet that OP complained that it wasn't enough to raise a child when she WAS receiving it while her ex/fiancee complained that it was too much. Of course, now that OP is trying to get out of her fiancee trying to pay it back, she's claiming that it was too much. Why didn't she claim that before?

That's why there a system to decide these things.