Child Support and the rights of the parents

An article for those of us that hadn't heard about it. Summary: a disgruntled father and ex-husband doesn't like having his wages deducted from his paycheck. After years of hopeless and rambling lawsuits, he took a grenade into a federal courthouse (which is across the street from a SPD precinct). Man refused full cooperation and was shot by police.

The event itself is fairly simple. If Perry Manley's goal was to bring the issue to the table, I'd call it (perhaps make it) a succes. So I'll ask the question. Does wage garnishing violate the rights (written or not) of a person, not necesarily of the male gender? Specifically addressed by Manley, were the civil rights concerning "involuntary servitude."

In my own experience, I've seen guys work overtime in a pay period and receive a check made out for the amount of $0.00. The average wage for this particular person worked out to less than the state minimum after his payments had been made. His wage started at $15.00/hour.

Before I offer my side, I'll post it for discussion. Is it right for anyone to have their entire check taken before they can buy food or pay rent?

Sidenote: I find this guy's name, a small humor of life...

 

Doesn't child support take into account the person's income? If it doesn't then it is wrong to garnish wages to the point of a zero paycheck. A man's gotta eat.

 

Child support is such a complex issue, it's always going to be impossible to please everyone.

I don't think garnishing wages of non-custodial parents is a bad thing if it's the only way to get them to support their children, but I don't think the method of calculating child support is fair to the non-custodial parent at the moment. I think that child support calculated on a percentage of income is an inherantly unfair way of calculating the figure payed to the custodial parent.
I personally don't believe a man should be held responsible for a child of a one night stand if he makes it clear from the start he doesn't wish to be a father.
I don't think that child support and visitation rights should be seperate issues.
I think that the child support agencies have an inherent bias against men and treat every man as a potential deadbeat, whether they are a model father or not.
I think that the current system is not fair to the second family of the non-custodial parent.
I think that child support agencies need to have the power to audit non-custodial parents when they dodge their responsibility.
I think that custodial parents should not have the right to relocate children to areas that the non-custodial parent cannot afford or has not the ability to visit, ie interstate.
I think that the financial outcome of divorce should be factored into the child support payment amount.
I think the cost of setting up a new houshold for non-custodial parents should be taken into account when calculating child support payments.

Just my thoughts on the whole child support issue. It's an enormous can of worms.

 

Does wage garnishing violate the rights (written or not) of a person, not necesarily of the male gender? Specifically addressed by Manley, were the civil rights concerning "involuntary servitude."

No. It is a responsibility of parenthood, thankfully protected by state and federal laws. If you are not responsible enough to provide support for your child, you are not responsible enough to be a parent. Since surgery to remove respective reproductive organs )for both genders) is a violation of human rights, the next best thing is to have laws on the books to garnish wages and punish those who abandon their children.

Is it right for anyone to have their entire check taken before they can buy food or pay rent?

No, it is not right. But then, that's not what happens, either.

Doesn't child support take into account the person's income?

That's exactly right. Payment is often calculated based on a percentage of income. I've not heard of the state garnishing an entire income in any case. Of course, I also concede that I'm not omniscient.

 

Is it right for anyone to have their entire check taken before they can buy food or pay rent?

No, it is not right. But then, that's not what happens, either.

It does indeed happen. If a paying parent loses their job, the child support agency here can demand payments equal to those you were making in the past because you have the potential to earn that income. It ends up being an arrears payment when you finally do get a job and the agency can garnish your entire wage to account for any payment in arrears.

 

It does indeed happen. If a paying parent loses their job, the child support agency here can demand payments equal to those you were making in the past because you have the potential to earn that income. It ends up being an arrears payment when you finally do get a job and the agency can garnish your entire wage to account for any payment in arrears.

Which state do you live in? In AZ and in WA (the two states in which I have resided) the government grants you the ability to make payments, not the entire lump sum you cannot afford back-payments.

In Manley's case, court documents indicate that he owed more than $8200.00 in child support. He had been involved in the court process for years, apparently.

According to his wife, he quit his high-paying job soon after the divorce so as not to have to pay so much in child support. Then, in a court document, it is reported: "After repeated failed attempts to bring a federal lawsuit claiming former employers did not have a right to garnish his wages, Manley filed a rambling document in late May that quoted from the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence.

It also threatened to have U.S. District Judge Thomas Zilly arrested for treason if he did not reinstate the case. Burroughs declined comment when asked if Manley was targeting Zilly or anyone in particular at the courthouse."
Seattle PI

As a father, it's my obligation to maintain a job to support my family, and to find a new one if I lose it. How is this any different?

What's truly sad is that we need laws to enforce support for children.

 

I don't live in the USA.

A lot of the problem with child support payments is they can become and are often seen as spousal maintenance. People don't enjoy paying money to their ex no matter what it's for.

 

A lot of the problem with child support payments is they can become and are often seen as spousal maintenance. People don't enjoy paying money to their ex no matter what it's for.

Here in the "States", we have a very big legal difference between the two:
1) Child support: supports the child[ren]
2) Alimony: supports the spouse.

If the former is abused by the spouse, and proven in court, the spouse may be forced to relenquish the child support (at minimum), or lose child support altogether (at max).

Alimony also ends when the recipient remarries. That is not always the case with child support, though it does often happen, because the step-parent can file for legal custody, thus clearing the paying parent of his/her obligation to support the child.

 

No, it is not right. But then, that's not what happens, either.

I physically saw the check. I had it in my hand. It happens.

If you are not responsible enough to provide support for your child, you are not responsible enough to be a parent.

The article I posted stated that Manley had no objection to supporting his children. He objected to not having a choice. Not everyone that owes child support abandoned their children. Regardless, there are parents that are horrible providers. It takes a divorce to force child support. With that in mind one should at least consider that the laws are designed to help the custodial parent rather than the children.

Still not ready to contribute my stance.

 

Well here, there's no such thing as alimony, but child support continues until the child is 18 no matter what the circumstances.

You can have a case where a man and woman with a child divorce and remarry. The new spousal income has no effect on child support, it's calculated as a percentage of the man's income, no matter what that income is. If his ex wife marries Bill Gates, he is still required to pay the set rate, even if he is supporting his second wife and kids.

 

With that in mind one should at least consider that the laws are designed to help the custodial parent rather than the children.

I disagree. The laws are designed to support the child.

Still not ready to contribute my stance.

Why? It's your thread? I'll stop posting so you have space to give your opinion.

 

I'm a noncustodial father who pays child support, but it's not taken out of my check. My daughter's mother and I have agreed on a payment, and I just hand her the check when I go to visit my daughter. So overall I've been pretty lucky.

 

To Jedi_Hood, a question I pose. Does the mother have the option of challenging the amount that you give her every month? Couldn't she, if so inclined (not saying that she is), simply tell the court that you have fallen behind on payments?

Note: the above is not a rhetorical question, I actually don't know for sure.

 

I actually had a discussion about this with an ex-girlfriend of mine about what would happen if hypothetically she got pregnant (after hypothetically me having sex with her...). I told her flat out that there was no way in hell I would pay child support and that any monthly amount could be worked out as mature adults without the government's interference, I would kidnap the child and escape the country if I had to to escape from having the government unfairly rip my money away. Being that I'm still in my 20s and not making that much money paying some insane amount every month is pretty much a death sentence to anybody's future, you just can't get ahead without extra income. But it's not so much the money, it's the fact that the mother's have absolutely no accountability. Show me the kid's food receipts, I'll pay it. Show me the receipts for new clothes, I'll pay it. Show me the receipts for daycare expenses, I'll pay it. Show me the gas expenses for hauling this kid around, I'll pay it. But paying some arbitrary lump sum every month when we all know damn well a good chunk of that money goes to the mom and not the child in any way??? Screw that.

I think the whole system is a joke, it should be based on actual projected expenses for the child, that's why it's called CHILD SUPPORT, not MOM SUPPORT.

 

We've had this discussion before, but why is a man who has never married a woman rsponsible for a child they create?

The man has no choice after all, but the woman can go terminate her pregnancy if she wishes even if the man wants the child.

Seems to be more than fair in a legal sense that if a woman can throw her unborn child in the trash that a man shouldn't have his choice to care for it or not be made for him by the government.

Now, of course I'm playing the devil's advocate here...

 

To Jedi_Hood, a question I pose. Does the mother have the option of challenging the amount that you give her every month? Couldn't she, if so inclined (not saying that she is), simply tell the court that you have fallen behind on payments?

Sure, she has that option. Like I said, we've always been able to agree on the child support issue, but if she wanted to, she could always go to DHS and say that I wasn't paying, or I wasn't paying enough. In which case, I'd probably be in court in short order.

However, there are ways to guard against that. I have carbon copies of all the checks I've written her, and on those occasion where I've given her cash I've managed to acquire a receipt (for the most part). So she wouldn't have much of a case. And dragging me into court would not exactly move me to be cooperative with her thereafter.


DM, I can understand the point you're trying to make (and yeah, I know you're playing DA here), but the way I see it, she's my daughter. I feel that it's my responsibility to provide for her. Besides, if I was married to her mother, I'd be supporting her anyway.

There are way too many fathers who don't step up, take responsibility, and provide for the children that they helped create. If there is one thing that I've done in my life that I'm proud of, it's that I did take responsibility......that I'm as much of a father as I can be to my daughter, both in terms of supporting her and "being there" for her.

 

We've had this discussion before, but why is a man who has never married a woman rsponsible for a child they create?

The man has no choice after all, but the woman can go terminate her pregnancy if she wishes even if the man wants the child.

I think that is officially the most discriminatory, irrational thing I've seen you post, DM.

The man AWLAYS has a choice. He makes that choice knowingly and willingly the moment he unzips his fly.

You fight so adamantly for "family" (when discussing gay marriage, abortion, etc), and yet you so deliberately toss aside the responsibilities of a loser parent who chooses to ignore the consequences of his actions?

Can you say hypocrit?

 

You couldn't tell that was a "devil's advocate" type statement?

 

Che, the man does not have the same choice the woman does in terms of pregnancy.

The true hypocracy is in the pro-choice advocate who doesn't afford the man any choice in caring for an unwanted child that was ok for the mother to destroy in utero.

e.g., A woman can "unzip her fly" with no consequences for raising a child, but if a man does so, well he better open up his wallet and forget about his life.

I simply reveal the total hypocracy on the matter of "choice" when it comes to children.

I did not once mention that I advoocate such a practice, nor would I ever personally do such a thing. I stated specifically that I was playing the devil's advocate.

 

Perhaps all us guys need to have the ladies sign contracts before sex saying that they acknowledge that use of our sperm is purely for recreational purposes and use for reproductive functions is expresly prohibited.

Then we'd still have our choice after the fact.

 

I am pretty sure someone's already tried the "she used my sperm against my wishes" argument in court. I am also pretty sure the outcome was that sperm once left with a woman is a gift and hers to do with as she pleases. More or less.

The problem with child support is the uncustodial parent pays the custodial parent directly. There's the big sticking point with most fathers, the fact they are paying an ex spouse that in many cases they absolutely hate. It's hard to hand over money to someone you dislke intensely. Perhaps there needs to be a method of payment where it is completely transparent that all monies payed benefit the child. As it is, much child support is spent on mortgages, cars, ciggarettes and alcohol. You'd have far less deadbeat fathers if they knew they were only supporting the children and not the mother.

 

The problem with child support is the uncustodial parent pays the custodial parent directly. There's the big sticking point with most fathers, the fact they are paying an ex spouse that in many cases they absolutely hate. It's hard to hand over money to someone you dislke intensely.

If there's an issue concerning the custodial parent's trustworthiness, then that's understandable. But if you don't like giving that person money simply because you don't like them.....well then, you need to get over it. Your child's welfare is more important than your feelings.

 

Here's a situation. This was an actual case but I don't know the specifics. There was this man and this woman who were coworkers who had an affair. The woman performed oral sex on the man and that's it. There is a reasonable expectation that pregnancy will not occur, right? But..the woman managed to collect the semen and impregnate herself and ended up bringing a paternity suit. In this situation, I think the woman is a scam artist. I believe the court ruled in favor of the man.

 

40% of all non-custodial parents pay the bare minimum child support payment - $5 a week.

I'm trying to explain why this figure is so, just saying "get over it" doesn't help the issue or change anything becasue people don't just "get over it".

 

I was expressing my feelings on a certain part of what you said. It seemed to me that the part I quoted from your post was saying that some non-custodial parents have issues with paying child support, simply because they dislike the other parent.....which, to my mind, is not right.