• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Ex trying to receive government assist

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Laubrey

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

My ex husband (my oldest child lives with him) is trying to get government assistance for his new family. Now, we have our divorce papers that state in them neither of us request support from one another. A caseworker from the state of Michigan (he lives there) sent my employer paperwork for information on my wages. I called her and she explained to me that since he is seeking government assistance, the state gets involved. My question is, do I legally need to fill this paper out (my employer sent it to me instead of filling it out)? I have no issues supporting my child, but I do have issues supporting her father. Our divorce papers that were signed by a judge do not count for anything? Any advice is very much appreciative.
 


Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Florida

My ex husband (my oldest child lives with him) is trying to get government assistance for his new family. Now, we have our divorce papers that state in them neither of us request support from one another. A caseworker from the state of Michigan (he lives there) sent my employer paperwork for information on my wages. I called her and she explained to me that since he is seeking government assistance, the state gets involved. My question is, do I legally need to fill this paper out (my employer sent it to me instead of filling it out)? I have no issues supporting my child, but I do have issues supporting her father. Our divorce papers that were signed by a judge do not count for anything? Any advice is very much appreciative.
The employer needs to fill the forms out. What you received were copies of what was sent, likely in order to start wage garnishments. This is because the state is being forced to spend money to support your child.
 

Silverplum

Senior Member
Child support can, and usually does, change during a child's minority. This is legal. Comply and fill out the paperwork to support your child.
 

ajkroy

Member
Tens of thousands of men have said the same thing about their ex-wives for decades. Sorry, you are about to get screwed.

DC
Get screwed? I think that if it is to the point that the state has to step in to take care of the basic needs of the child, then SOMEBODY needs to step up and contribute to the needs of their offspring. I don't call that "getting screwed" -- I call that parenting.
 

Laubrey

Junior Member
Tens of thousands of men have said the same thing about their ex-wives for decades. Sorry, you are about to get screwed.

DC
I figured as much. It's tough knowing I have to support a man that refuses (decent paying) jobs due to the fact that they interfere with his 'religion'.

Thanks guys.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
I figured as much. It's tough knowing I have to support a man that refuses (decent paying) jobs due to the fact that they interfere with his 'religion'.

Thanks guys.
You're not supporting the man, you're supporting the mutual child.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
Get screwed? I think that if it is to the point that the state has to step in to take care of the basic needs of the child, then SOMEBODY needs to step up and contribute to the needs of their offspring. I don't call that "getting screwed" -- I call that parenting.
My "like" was based more on the first part of the post...I couldn't "like" half" only. I agree that this is not a case of the OP getting screwed, but it IS definitely something that usually men end up saying.
 

Silverplum

Senior Member
I figured as much. It's tough knowing I have to support a man that refuses (decent paying) jobs due to the fact that they interfere with his 'religion'.

Thanks guys.
As bitter and nasty as any man, just at the idea of sending money to support one's child. :rolleyes:

No need to mock a person's faith or religion. You run along, now.
 

TigerD

Senior Member
As bitter and nasty as any man, just at the idea of sending money to support one's child. :rolleyes:

No need to mock a person's faith or religion. You run along, now.
Really, that depends on the faith or religion.

For example: While I would never mock a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, etc., I really don't see much wrong with mocking Jediism, Bandosianism, or Pastafarains.

DC
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
Really, that depends on the faith or religion.

For example: While I would never mock a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, etc., I really don't see much wrong with mocking Jediism, Bandosianism, or Pastafarains.

DC
Oh...my...(Christian) GOD! Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster - really?!?
 

single317dad

Senior Member
Really, that depends on the faith or religion.

For example: While I would never mock a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, etc., I really don't see much wrong with mocking Jediism, Bandosianism, or Pastafarains.

DC
That's OK; the Pastafarians will mock the others for you. It's sort of the whole point of the religion. It actually makes a lot of sense if you research the religion and the purpose for which it was established.

Interesting commentary in this thread form the member who posts regularly in the Debt forum to "pay your obligations" to commercial creditors, yet when one has a child that needs supporting they're "getting screwed."
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
That's OK; the Pastafarians will mock the others for you. It's sort of the whole point of the religion. It actually makes a lot of sense if you research the religion and the purpose for which it was established.

Interesting commentary in this thread form the member who posts regularly in the Debt forum to "pay your obligations" to commercial creditors, yet when one has a child that needs supporting they're "getting screwed."
In a way, I can sympathize with a parent when there is a court order saying no child support, when the state steps in and forces child support. There are usually reasons why parents make those agreements and sometimes they are very valid reasons.

For example mom says that her oldest child lives with dad. Maybe another or other children from that marriage live with mom?
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
In a way, I can sympathize with a parent when there is a court order saying no child support, when the state steps in and forces child support. There are usually reasons why parents make those agreements and sometimes they are very valid reasons.

For example mom says that her oldest child lives with dad. Maybe another or other children from that marriage live with mom?
The OP didn't say that the court ordered no child support. The OP may very well have meant that, but it should be clarified.

...we have our divorce papers that state in them neither of us request support from one another.
 

TigerD

Senior Member
That's OK; the Pastafarians will mock the others for you. It's sort of the whole point of the religion. It actually makes a lot of sense if you research the religion and the purpose for which it was established.

Interesting commentary in this thread form the member who posts regularly in the Debt forum to "pay your obligations" to commercial creditors, yet when one has a child that needs supporting they're "getting screwed."
There is a huge gulf between taking care of your kids and paying for your ex's new BMW -- I know, I've been there. Our system for marriages, divorces, and child support is broken and really quite silly when you look at it objectively.

For example: When you have two people, one of whom is significantly better off than the other, and they have a child, what possible sense does it make to place the child with the poorer one? Let's strip out all of the noise. Two parents who both love the kid and don't have abuse, drugs or anything else. Just two parents. One makes $90k a year and the other makes $27k a year. Who is better situated to care for that child?

The one who makes $90k a year - every time and twice on Sunday. Money equals opportunity. The person making $90k a year most likely has friends that make incomes in the same range. They have different mindsets toward money and education and activities than the person making $27k a year. While the child might still attend public school, there is a world of difference between the public schools in the $90k neighborhoods and the schools in the $27k neighborhoods. It is the difference between growing up with people that build companies and the people that hope to pay bills. The kid will be much better off with the person making $90k a year.

Now child support cannot change that. The person making $27k will still be making $27k and associating with those people. Even if the child support is $20k a year, the $27k worker is still surrounded by $27k associates and friends. The money gets spent - largely not on the child - because the $27k person is living too close to poverty to be able to avoid spending that money on anything but pulling him or herself up just a little farther. But it isn't earned income. There is no respect for that money. Or the person who earned it. Instead of child support, it becomes charity, an entitlement - but not for the kid - for the parent.

It is a flawed and broken system. And yes, largely speaking, the non custodial parent gets screwed -- especially if they make more money than the other parent. I'm not saying they shouldn't pay their child support. But there is nothing wrong with recognizing that they are about to get screwed.

DC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top