we lost an employee for child support..

[zipzam]

a deputy came in and picked up an employee for not paying child support this morning.
obviously, he's out of a job now.
i wonder... is this a smart move? NOW, he's not only a "deadbeat dad" but OUR tax money is supporthing him. baby's momma STILL isn't getting support and WON'T get support with him unemployed.

i agree with cracking down on deadbeat dads... but this hardly seems like a solution.

[granny2young]

I thought debtors prison was done away with a long time ago. If a dad is not willing to support his children that tells what kind of person he is, morally and ethically and where his priorities lie, and no amount of law is going to change him.

[Frey]

...What employers are responsible for (from the Mississippi Child Support Laws website)...

"According to federal and Mississippi State laws enacted in 1996, (State Law 43-19-46 and 91-11-101), all employers must report basic information about newly hired employees to a designated state agency.

This new hire information can be matched with state and national data to help collect child support through income withholding. Employers that do not report this information are subject to penalty of $25.00 per case, or up to $500.00 if there is collusion between the employer and the non-custodial parent."

Did you have his wages garnished?

In most states a non-custodial parent will spend up to six months in prison for not paying child support. While doing time, they are still held responsible for the money they owe the other parent. I do agree that this is not the solution to the problem (which seems to be getting worse...). My solution is mandatory sterilization; however, it is against the law.

[King Rat]

granny2young said:

I thought debtors prison was done away with a long time ago. If a dad is not willing to support his children that tells what kind of person he is, morally and ethically and where his priorities lie, and no amount of law is going to change him.

So what would you do with them? As soon as we stop enforcing our laws simply because putting someone in prison won't "change" them we might as well throw in the towel. Prison is to punish. If it just so happens that the punishment "rehabilitates" the offender then that is an added benefit. But punishment should be the primary focus.

[zipzam]

frey said:

This new hire information can be matched with state and national data to help collect child support through income withholding. Employers that do not report this information are subject to penalty of $25.00 per case, or up to $500.00 if there is collusion between the employer and the non-custodial parent."

Did you have his wages garnished?

when a new person is hired... it takes time for the paperwork to get through the "system" before it comes to the employer to garnish wages. the employer can't garnish until the courts send the paperwork to garnish (that had not happened yet in this case).

rat, you bring up a decent point about "prison is punishment"... but i tend to think prison is equally protection from the offender.

with that said... i can see him being locked up could "protect" another woman from having a child with him... but that's stretching a tad.

still... i tend to focus on WHY didn't the "system" not try to quicken the garnishment so the mom could get money? she won't get anything if he's not working.

[Frey]

Is the arrest in the interest of the approval process then? It seems as if it would be in conflict with the fact that employers have to get approval before garnishment occurs. On the other hand, the dad should have taken care of this when he made the decision to breed (again...mandatory sterilization).

[zipzam]

frey said:

Is the arrest in the interest of the approval process then? It seems as if it would be in conflict with the fact that employers have to get approval before garnishment occurs. On the other hand, the dad should have taken care of this when he made the decision to breed (again...mandatory sterilization).

the arrest does nothing to speed the process of the employer getting paperwork to garnish.
worse, it puts the employer in a position to look elsewhere for an employee. the employer can't wait around to see if this guy will get out of jail... and may not have an opening if/when he's out of jail.
so, now the guy will seek employment elsewhere and the paperwork starts over at with a new employer.
this slows down the process of the mom getting support.

the mom had to get a judge to sign an order to arrest this man for contempt (not paying court ordered support)... why couldn't the judge sign an order to garnish the check instead???

[zipzam]

and it just gets dumber.

in the mail this afternoon.. guess what? yep, we get the garnishment papers from the state for this guy.

so, instead of the mom getting his checked garnished starting this week,,, he's sitting in jail not working.

what the heck was the judge thinking by signing off to throw him in jail? why didn't the judge find out WHY his check wasn't garnished yet? why didn't the judge FIX that problem instead of creating a new one?

i really wonder how much sense some people in the legal system have...

[Frey]

Just a note, Zip...

This counts as your daily soapbox!!!!!!!!!!!

[King Rat]

zipzam said:

rat, you bring up a decent point about "prison is punishment"... but i tend to think prison is equally protection from the offender.

My response to Granny was a generic response about prison and not an opinion on whether this guy should be in jail for not paying child support. But I do think the entire child custody/support system is screwed up and horribly unfair to fathers. That being said, fathers should support their children and the deadbeats need to be forced to do it. If and when the garnishment process fails the bum should be thrown in jail - not before.

[momof3]

I am on the other side of the coin and have been for years. My ex has never paid a dime in child support and they actually have a garnishment for him. But, guess what? He works for cash. In the meantime, he is supporting another wife and her three children, while his has always gone without. Let me give you a little background...

I divorced my ex because he was not only abusive to me but to our children. Thankfully, I was able to get out of a bad situation. During our divorce, the judge ordered him to pay $200.00 per month for c.s. for two children. He did not take into consideration that my child care for me to work and support the three of us was $90.00 per week. I worked a full time job through the week and while the kids were with his mother, (he never wanted to see them) I worked every other weekend at a part time job. This part time job helped to pay daycare. During the three years that I was a single mother, I applied for every federal and state assistance I could. At one time, he actually had a good job where he had insurance on the kids. (All medical costs were his responsiblity) My daughter was scheduled at Lebonheur hospital for a major surgery and he quit his job so he wouldn't have to pay for the deductible. This left me to apply for Medicaid. When I applied for Medicaid, the state took over the child support case. Now, keep in mind that he still had never paid a dime in child support, and refused to buy the kids anything. (Even Christmas and birthday presents) Eventually the state cancelled his driver's license, (although they were already suspended for DUI) and made it so that he could not get a hunting license. (BIG Whoopee!! All he ever does is hunt and fish on family land) To this day, he is still walking around scott free and does not help one bit.

Thankfully, I remarried to a wonderful guy who has raised my children like they were his and has been a better Dad to them than he ever has.

Do I think that it's a little harsh for the state to lock up deadbeat dads? NO WAY!! My kids have gone without their whole lives and they do not deserve that!! I think that whatever it takes to make these dads (and I use the term loosely) responsible for their children, let's do it!

I understand that the garnishment wages came in a little late, but you need to understand, the state does not go after these guys and arrest them unless it's a pretty big amount. (My ex currently owes in excess of $30,000.) There's no telling how long he had been dodging this. On the flip side, if he wasn't dodging it, he should have told his employer about the garnishment and called the state. This would have probably prevented him from being arrested.

[zipzam]

cpurdon said:

That being said, fathers should support their children and the deadbeats need to be forced to do it. If and when the garnishment process fails the bum should be thrown in jail - not before.

i completely agree rat.

mom... i understand your sitch but it's a completely different sitch than this one.

the "father" of your children is being a bum. unfortionately, it's tough to get any support if he works for cash. in your case... i understand throwing the bum in jail.

[King Rat]

I think a big part of the problem is that our society assumes a father is a deadbeat until he proves otherwise. In cases of divorce the court typically tells the father that his only value to his child is in his ability to provide a monthly check. Were that NOT the case fathers would be granted more access to their children than the standard 4 days a month.

I'm one of the lucky ones because I have EQUAL custody of my daughter. She lives with me more than half the time.

[zipzam]

cpurdon said:

I think a big part of the problem is that our society assumes a father is a deadbeat until he proves otherwise. In cases of divorce the court typically tells the father that his only value to his child is in his ability to provide a monthly check. Were that NOT the case fathers would be granted more access to their children than the standard 4 days a month.

I'm one of the lucky ones because I have EQUAL custody of my daughter. She lives with me more than half the time.

very true rat, very true.
ok... not to tick off the ladies of the board, but i just don't agree with courts (pretty much) automatically giving primary custody to the mother. i understand why it was that way in the old days, women rarely worked in the old days. women spent most of the time with the kids and the kids should have stayed with the mom back then.
in this day and age, the mother typically works full time just like the father. in these cases, the father should have every equal opportunity for custody that the mother gets. it doesn't work that way unfortionately for dads.

[King Rat]

If I am not mistaken (I did a search and read MS Law), judges in MS are no longer supposed to assume the mother is the better parent in custody cases. Both parents are supposed to start out on equal legal footing. Of course we all know that doesn't happen and there is no way to enforce it. Opinion has to change. Society has to start appreciating the role of the father outside the scope of money.