Reimbursing the state

[SBEASY]

What is the name of your state? IN.

I'm just trying to learn all I can-don't have a case or anything. I read often in these forums about the NCP having to reimburse for any aid their child received. Which,I understand the taxpayers shouldn't be responsible for taking care of peoples children.BUT-why should the NCP be responsible for reimbursement,if they didn't even know their children were receiving aid?And,if the NCP who has joint custody,but not physical custody,could provide for the child without receiving any aid,then shouldn't they be the one with physical custody to begin with?(of course assuming there's no reason they would be deemed unfit)

Do states ALWAYS seek reimbursement?What is the name of your state?

 

[CourtClerk]

We obviously cannot work in hypotheticals or guess why legislature has done what they have done, but I for one think it is an absolutely horrible idea that while (typically) mom received aid for herself and the children that dad gets to pay the bill.

Then when mom gets on her feet, she starts screaming about how it is the responsibility of both parents to support the children, but she's unwilling to pay back the state for her half of the aid benefits SHE received when SHE applied, whether or not she advised dad of her intentions. It's one of those unfair things in life I suppose.

And yes, whenever possible, the state ALWAYS goes after reimbursement, as they should. IMO, they should go after both parents though. In fact, I'll take it a little bit further. Dad should only be responsible for 1/3 of the bill. In most states, TANF benefits are for the "family" meaning mother and child, unless the adult has been excluded for some reason. Therefore, mom should be responsible for paying back ALL of her portion of the benefit and 1/2 for the child. Dad should only be responsible for 1/2 of the benefit for the child. So, divide it by 3, mom pays back 2/3, dad pays back 1/3.

 

[Gracie3787]

We obviously cannot work in hypotheticals or guess why legislature has done what they have done, but I for one think it is an absolutely horrible idea that while (typically) mom received aid for herself and the children that dad gets to pay the bill.

Then when mom gets on her feet, she starts screaming about how it is the responsibility of both parents to support the children, but she's unwilling to pay back the state for her half of the aid benefits SHE received when SHE applied, whether or not she advised dad of her intentions. It's one of those unfair things in life I suppose.

And yes, whenever possible, the state ALWAYS goes after reimbursement, as they should. IMO, they should go after both parents though. In fact, I'll take it a little bit further. Dad should only be responsible for 1/3 of the bill. In most states, TANF benefits are for the "family" meaning mother and child, unless the adult has been excluded for some reason. Therefore, mom should be responsible for paying back ALL of her portion of the benefit and 1/2 for the child. Dad should only be responsible for 1/2 of the benefit for the child. So, divide it by 3, mom pays back 2/3, dad pays back 1/3.

I wholeheartedly agree. Now, if we can just convince our lawmakers that we are right, we'd really get something done.

 

[LdiJ]

We obviously cannot work in hypotheticals or guess why legislature has done what they have done, but I for one think it is an absolutely horrible idea that while (typically) mom received aid for herself and the children that dad gets to pay the bill.

Then when mom gets on her feet, she starts screaming about how it is the responsibility of both parents to support the children, but she's unwilling to pay back the state for her half of the aid benefits SHE received when SHE applied, whether or not she advised dad of her intentions. It's one of those unfair things in life I suppose.

And yes, whenever possible, the state ALWAYS goes after reimbursement, as they should. IMO, they should go after both parents though. In fact, I'll take it a little bit further. Dad should only be responsible for 1/3 of the bill. In most states, TANF benefits are for the "family" meaning mother and child, unless the adult has been excluded for some reason. Therefore, mom should be responsible for paying back ALL of her portion of the benefit and 1/2 for the child. Dad should only be responsible for 1/2 of the benefit for the child. So, divide it by 3, mom pays back 2/3, dad pays back 1/3.

In my state, which happens to be Indiana, an ncp is only required to reimburse the state if the ncp has not been paying child support.

If child support is being paid, then the state gives the cp a choice between received the child support and no cash assistance, or keeping the cash assistance and the state keeps the bulk of the child support.

Therefore, there is no reason why a CP should have to share in paying back the state. The only thing that the state is getting from the ncp, is the child support the ncp was supposed to be paying in the first place. Basically, the state paid CS for the ncp since they weren't paying it, and now the ncp has to pay back the state.

 

[my life is mine]

Ok lets throw this in there, what if CP is working but still qualifies for aid due to the amount of monies CP is making to support children.

Scenario CP is Dad, he has custody of 4 kids, and is working but his salary still qualifies him to receive aid. NCP Mom is not supporting children and possibly can not be found at the time (to have support placed on her). Should then the CP be the one required to pay state back when aid is no longer needed? I don't believe so, I think that responsibility should be on NCP (Mom).

 

[brcr44]

been there

Ok, This is a true case. I had two kids 4 and 6, my ex sent me to live with my parents, after a time he came but said he could find no work, he was asked to leave. I continued to stay and worked for a fast food place. I never applied because my father would have to show them all his financial stuff. I divorced him about a 1 1/2 years later. I remarried a short time later and my husband and i decided it was better if i stayed home due to daycare. We qualified for medical and dental and food stamps. At no time did i apply for tanf. My ex never paid a dime for 13 years. I divorced him in 1989. I finally got support in 2002 at 32.30 a week. Right about now you are probably say i wish. Yeah it was based off minimum wage of 3:35 an hour. So today my oldest is 25 and the other son is 23, I am still owed 14,000.00 dollars and receive a weekily check of 32.30. The law for oklahoma is only tanf funds are to be repaid because that is paid in lue of the non custodial parent paying child support. So yes it is fair that the NCP have to repay the state because they paid your child support for you.

 

[payyourcs]

I was on assistance for 2 or 3 months at the beginning of our divorce. My ex was not paying supports at the time. I got off of it and they showed over paying me since I got a job right after a payment came. Months later I noticed, when I did receive a child support payment, they would deduct a percentage of what they paid me to pay back the State. To this day, 13 years later, it is showing I owe them $1,100.
My ex even went as far as this: writing a child support payment check and sent it off to the Division of Child Support. They in turn put the money in my checking account via EFT. His check bounced on them. They asked me to refund the money. I said No, you collect it from him. Now it shows I owe them that as well.
The system is way messed up. I think the payee should owe the state what he didn't pay in child support. Anything above and beyond that is called Assistance not a loan.