Unbelievable

[barb 702]

[Indyguy1]

Barb wrote:

>I recently heard from three families where the state of Indiana was
>reopening decades old child support cases, In each of these cases, the
>child in question is now an adult, two of the children are now 26 years
>old.` And not only is the State sueing for back child support, they were
>also sueing for repayment of funds which the state paid out for medicaid
>and AFDC when the child was a minor.
>
>I thought all this so unbelievable that just this afternoon I phoned
>our local Child Support office and I was assured such was happening.
>
>To make matters worse, the state presents these law suits against the
>fathers as if the ex wife has initiated them. And that is flatly not
>the case. The first these mothers had any clue that these suits had
>been filed was when they, out of the blue, got a check from the state.
>Without a doubt, the back support these fathers could owe will amount to
>thousands upon thousands of dollars. Considering the fact that good
>paying jobs are about as scarce as hen's teeth, can't you imagine the
>stress this will cause fathers who are now well into their forties.
>
>And considering the amount of domestic violence usually connected to
>divorce and chiid support, heaven help us all as the state quietly goes
>about wrecking havoc upon these families.
>barb
>
>

Barb, I'm having a difficult time understanding just what your beef is with the
state of Indiana, regarding its desire to collect on past bad debts.

If you're ticked they waited so long, then I understand. However if you are
just angry that they are pursuing these bad debts, then I fail to understand
your anger. As a tax payer, I too am ticked they waited decades to collect, but
better late than never.

Mrs Indyguy

[Phil #3]

"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
> Barb wrote:
>
>>I recently heard from three families where the state of Indiana was
>>reopening decades old child support cases, In each of these cases, the
>>child in question is now an adult, two of the children are now 26 years
>>old.` And not only is the State sueing for back child support, they were
>>also sueing for repayment of funds which the state paid out for medicaid
>>and AFDC when the child was a minor.
>>
>>I thought all this so unbelievable that just this afternoon I phoned
>>our local Child Support office and I was assured such was happening.
>>
>>To make matters worse, the state presents these law suits against the
>>fathers as if the ex wife has initiated them. And that is flatly not
>>the case. The first these mothers had any clue that these suits had
>>been filed was when they, out of the blue, got a check from the state.
>>Without a doubt, the back support these fathers could owe will amount to
>>thousands upon thousands of dollars. Considering the fact that good
>>paying jobs are about as scarce as hen's teeth, can't you imagine the
>>stress this will cause fathers who are now well into their forties.
>>
>>And considering the amount of domestic violence usually connected to
>>divorce and chiid support, heaven help us all as the state quietly goes
>>about wrecking havoc upon these families.
>>barb
>>
>>
>
> Barb, I'm having a difficult time understanding just what your beef is
> with the
> state of Indiana, regarding its desire to collect on past bad debts.
>
> If you're ticked they waited so long, then I understand. However if you
> are
> just angry that they are pursuing these bad debts, then I fail to
> understand
> your anger. As a tax payer, I too am ticked they waited decades to
> collect, but
> better late than never.
>
> Mrs Indyguy

Too bad they have no interest in the time many of these fathers undoubtedly
lost with their children due to the screwed up system that thinks only of
money.
Phil #3

[Mel Gamble]

And too bad...

Phil #3 wrote:
>
> "Indyguy1" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Barb wrote:
> >
> >>I recently heard from three families where the state of Indiana was
> >>reopening decades old child support cases, In each of these cases, the
> >>child in question is now an adult, two of the children are now 26 years
> >>old.` And not only is the State sueing for back child support, they were
> >>also sueing for repayment of funds which the state paid out for medicaid
> >>and AFDC when the child was a minor.
> >>
> >>I thought all this so unbelievable that just this afternoon I phoned
> >>our local Child Support office and I was assured such was happening.
> >>
> >>To make matters worse, the state presents these law suits against the
> >>fathers as if the ex wife has initiated them. And that is flatly not
> >>the case. The first these mothers had any clue that these suits had
> >>been filed was when they, out of the blue, got a check from the state.
> >>Without a doubt, the back support these fathers could owe will amount to
> >>thousands upon thousands of dollars. Considering the fact that good
> >>paying jobs are about as scarce as hen's teeth, can't you imagine the
> >>stress this will cause fathers who are now well into their forties.
> >>
> >>And considering the amount of domestic violence usually connected to
> >>divorce and chiid support, heaven help us all as the state quietly goes
> >>about wrecking havoc upon these families.
> >>barb
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Barb, I'm having a difficult time understanding just what your beef is
> > with the
> > state of Indiana, regarding its desire to collect on past bad debts.
> >
> > If you're ticked they waited so long, then I understand. However if you
> > are
> > just angry that they are pursuing these bad debts, then I fail to
> > understand
> > your anger. As a tax payer, I too am ticked they waited decades to
> > collect, but
> > better late than never.
> >
> > Mrs Indyguy
>
> Too bad they have no interest in the time many of these fathers undoubtedly
> lost with their children due to the screwed up system that thinks only of
> money.
> Phil #3

the debts may be totally artificial in the first place. Too bad the
state can "legally" say "you owe" without being able to back up the
statement with anything more than "we say so". Indyguy believes "you
owe us because we say you owe us" is a fully legitimate statement. I
wonder why she sees it differently when I say she owes ME just because I
say she owes me?

Mel Gamble

[Indyguy1]

Mel wrote:

>And too bad...
>
>Phil #3 wrote:
>>
>> "Indyguy1" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Barb wrote:
>> >
>> >>I recently heard from three families where the state of Indiana was
>> >>reopening decades old child support cases, In each of these cases, the
>> >>child in question is now an adult, two of the children are now 26 years
>> >>old.` And not only is the State sueing for back child support, they were
>> >>also sueing for repayment of funds which the state paid out for medicaid
>> >>and AFDC when the child was a minor.
>> >>
>> >>I thought all this so unbelievable that just this afternoon I phoned
>> >>our local Child Support office and I was assured such was happening.
>> >>
>> >>To make matters worse, the state presents these law suits against the
>> >>fathers as if the ex wife has initiated them. And that is flatly not
>> >>the case. The first these mothers had any clue that these suits had
>> >>been filed was when they, out of the blue, got a check from the state.
>> >>Without a doubt, the back support these fathers could owe will amount to
>> >>thousands upon thousands of dollars. Considering the fact that good
>> >>paying jobs are about as scarce as hen's teeth, can't you imagine the
>> >>stress this will cause fathers who are now well into their forties.
>> >>
>> >>And considering the amount of domestic violence usually connected to
>> >>divorce and chiid support, heaven help us all as the state quietly goes
>> >>about wrecking havoc upon these families.
>> >>barb
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > Barb, I'm having a difficult time understanding just what your beef is
>> > with the
>> > state of Indiana, regarding its desire to collect on past bad debts.
>> >
>> > If you're ticked they waited so long, then I understand. However if you
>> > are
>> > just angry that they are pursuing these bad debts, then I fail to
>> > understand
>> > your anger. As a tax payer, I too am ticked they waited decades to
>> > collect, but
>> > better late than never.
>> >
>> > Mrs Indyguy
>>
>> Too bad they have no interest in the time many of these fathers undoubtedly
>> lost with their children due to the screwed up system that thinks only of
>> money.
>> Phil #3
>
>the debts may be totally artificial in the first place. Too bad the
>state can "legally" say "you owe" without being able to back up the
>statement with anything more than "we say so".

My comments were based on the assumption that the money is actually owed.

Indyguy believes "you
>owe us because we say you owe us" is a fully legitimate statement. I
>wonder why she sees it differently when I say she owes ME just because I
>say she owes me?

Trying to muddy the waters won't change the fact that many tax payers don't
want to support any children other than their own. If I lived in Indiana I'd be
cheering on the state to get the money back from the parent. I guess you'd just
be satisfied with your tax dollars going to pay another parents obligation.

I have no problem helping someone elses children. I had them in my Girl Scout
troops, I was their room mother, I drove them to the mall, etc. But I have no
interest in paying for their medical care, food, clothing, etc. when they have
parents that should be doing so.

Mrs Indyguy
>
>Mel Gamble
>
>
>
>
>
>

[The Dave©]

> Indyguy1 wrote:
> Trying to muddy the waters won't change the fact that many tax payers
> don't want to support any children other than their own. If I lived
> in Indiana I'd be cheering on the state to get the money back from
> the parent. I guess you'd just be satisfied with your tax dollars
> going to pay another parents obligation.

ONLY of the money really is owed. It is not unreasonable to expect the
state or anyone else to have proper documentation to prove it.

--
Q. Why do Hell's Angels wear leather?
A. Because chiffon wrinkles too easily.
~ Paul Lynde, on Hollywood Squares

[Bob Whiteside]

"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
> Mel wrote:
>
> >And too bad...
> >
> >Phil #3 wrote:
> >>
> >> "Indyguy1" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > Barb wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>I recently heard from three families where the state of Indiana was
> >> >>reopening decades old child support cases, In each of these cases,
the
> >> >>child in question is now an adult, two of the children are now 26
years
> >> >>old.` And not only is the State sueing for back child support, they
were
> >> >>also sueing for repayment of funds which the state paid out for
medicaid
> >> >>and AFDC when the child was a minor.
> >> >>
> >> >>I thought all this so unbelievable that just this afternoon I phoned
> >> >>our local Child Support office and I was assured such was happening.
> >> >>
> >> >>To make matters worse, the state presents these law suits against the
> >> >>fathers as if the ex wife has initiated them. And that is flatly not
> >> >>the case. The first these mothers had any clue that these suits had
> >> >>been filed was when they, out of the blue, got a check from the
state.
> >> >>Without a doubt, the back support these fathers could owe will amount
to
> >> >>thousands upon thousands of dollars. Considering the fact that good
> >> >>paying jobs are about as scarce as hen's teeth, can't you imagine
the
> >> >>stress this will cause fathers who are now well into their forties.
> >> >>
> >> >>And considering the amount of domestic violence usually connected to
> >> >>divorce and chiid support, heaven help us all as the state quietly
goes
> >> >>about wrecking havoc upon these families.
> >> >>barb
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Barb, I'm having a difficult time understanding just what your beef
is
> >> > with the
> >> > state of Indiana, regarding its desire to collect on past bad debts.
> >> >
> >> > If you're ticked they waited so long, then I understand. However if
you
> >> > are
> >> > just angry that they are pursuing these bad debts, then I fail to
> >> > understand
> >> > your anger. As a tax payer, I too am ticked they waited decades to
> >> > collect, but
> >> > better late than never.
> >> >
> >> > Mrs Indyguy
> >>
> >> Too bad they have no interest in the time many of these fathers
undoubtedly
> >> lost with their children due to the screwed up system that thinks only
of
> >> money.
> >> Phil #3
> >
> >the debts may be totally artificial in the first place. Too bad the
> >state can "legally" say "you owe" without being able to back up the
> >statement with anything more than "we say so".
>
> My comments were based on the assumption that the money is actually owed.
>
> Indyguy believes "you
> >owe us because we say you owe us" is a fully legitimate statement. I
> >wonder why she sees it differently when I say she owes ME just because I
> >say she owes me?
>
> Trying to muddy the waters won't change the fact that many tax payers
don't
> want to support any children other than their own. If I lived in Indiana
I'd be
> cheering on the state to get the money back from the parent. I guess you'd
just
> be satisfied with your tax dollars going to pay another parents
obligation.
>
> I have no problem helping someone elses children. I had them in my Girl
Scout
> troops, I was their room mother, I drove them to the mall, etc. But I have
no
> interest in paying for their medical care, food, clothing, etc. when they
have
> parents that should be doing so.

I'm sure you know this - any public assistance money is only repayable by
the NCP. The CP who collects the money is presumed to not have the ability
to support her own children. So technically there is no "parents"
obligation. It is an NCP parent's obligation to support his children with
the assistance of the taxpayers for any amount over the CS guideline
calculation amount.

[barb 702]

[Indyguy1]

Bob wrote:

>"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
>> Mel wrote:
>>
>> >And too bad...
>> >
>> >Phil #3 wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Indyguy1" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > Barb wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>I recently heard from three families where the state of Indiana was
>> >> >>reopening decades old child support cases, In each of these cases,
>the
>> >> >>child in question is now an adult, two of the children are now 26
>years
>> >> >>old.` And not only is the State sueing for back child support, they
>were
>> >> >>also sueing for repayment of funds which the state paid out for
>medicaid
>> >> >>and AFDC when the child was a minor.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>I thought all this so unbelievable that just this afternoon I phoned
>> >> >>our local Child Support office and I was assured such was happening.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>To make matters worse, the state presents these law suits against the
>> >> >>fathers as if the ex wife has initiated them. And that is flatly not
>> >> >>the case. The first these mothers had any clue that these suits had
>> >> >>been filed was when they, out of the blue, got a check from the
>state.
>> >> >>Without a doubt, the back support these fathers could owe will amount
>to
>> >> >>thousands upon thousands of dollars. Considering the fact that good
>> >> >>paying jobs are about as scarce as hen's teeth, can't you imagine
>the
>> >> >>stress this will cause fathers who are now well into their forties.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>And considering the amount of domestic violence usually connected to
>> >> >>divorce and chiid support, heaven help us all as the state quietly
>goes
>> >> >>about wrecking havoc upon these families.
>> >> >>barb
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Barb, I'm having a difficult time understanding just what your beef
>is
>> >> > with the
>> >> > state of Indiana, regarding its desire to collect on past bad debts.
>> >> >
>> >> > If you're ticked they waited so long, then I understand. However if
>you
>> >> > are
>> >> > just angry that they are pursuing these bad debts, then I fail to
>> >> > understand
>> >> > your anger. As a tax payer, I too am ticked they waited decades to
>> >> > collect, but
>> >> > better late than never.
>> >> >
>> >> > Mrs Indyguy
>> >>
>> >> Too bad they have no interest in the time many of these fathers
>undoubtedly
>> >> lost with their children due to the screwed up system that thinks only
>of
>> >> money.
>> >> Phil #3
>> >
>> >the debts may be totally artificial in the first place. Too bad the
>> >state can "legally" say "you owe" without being able to back up the
>> >statement with anything more than "we say so".
>>
>> My comments were based on the assumption that the money is actually owed.
>>
>> Indyguy believes "you
>> >owe us because we say you owe us" is a fully legitimate statement. I
>> >wonder why she sees it differently when I say she owes ME just because I
>> >say she owes me?
>>
>> Trying to muddy the waters won't change the fact that many tax payers
>don't
>> want to support any children other than their own. If I lived in Indiana
>I'd be
>> cheering on the state to get the money back from the parent. I guess you'd
>just
>> be satisfied with your tax dollars going to pay another parents
>obligation.
>>
>> I have no problem helping someone elses children. I had them in my Girl
>Scout
>> troops, I was their room mother, I drove them to the mall, etc. But I have
>no
>> interest in paying for their medical care, food, clothing, etc. when they
>have
>> parents that should be doing so.
>
>I'm sure you know this - any public assistance money is only repayable by
>the NCP. The CP who collects the money is presumed to not have the ability
>to support her own children. So technically there is no "parents"
>obligation. It is an NCP parent's obligation to support his children with
>the assistance of the taxpayers for any amount over the CS guideline
>calculation amount.

Yes Bob, I do know this and I don't agree with it. HOWEVER I'd rather see one
of the parents pay the tab than the tax payers that aren't related to the child
at all.

My views on this are tainted by the fact that I don't believe in public hand
outs for anyone. At the VERY least these welfare receipiants (and yes the NCP
are included as the other parent of the child) should be working for the states
in some capcity, even if it is picking up trash on the highways nights and
weekends, for ANYTHING they are given.

Mrs Indyguy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Indyguy1]

The Dave wrote:

>> Indyguy1 wrote:
>> Trying to muddy the waters won't change the fact that many tax payers
>> don't want to support any children other than their own. If I lived
>> in Indiana I'd be cheering on the state to get the money back from
>> the parent. I guess you'd just be satisfied with your tax dollars
>> going to pay another parents obligation.
>
>ONLY of the money really is owed.

This is a given.

It is not unreasonable to expect the
>state or anyone else to have proper documentation to prove it.

Nor is it unreasonable for the NCP to be expected to have the proper
documentation that they did infact pay the suppport and that they owe the state
zilch.


Mrs Indyguy


>
>--
>Q. Why do Hell's Angels wear leather?
>A. Because chiffon wrinkles too easily.
> ~ Paul Lynde, on Hollywood Squares
>
>
>
>
>
>

[The Dave©]

> Indyguy1 wrote:
> >> Indyguy1 wrote:
> >> Trying to muddy the waters won't change the fact that many tax
> payers >> don't want to support any children other than their own. If
> I lived >> in Indiana I'd be cheering on the state to get the money
> back from >> the parent. I guess you'd just be satisfied with your
> tax dollars >> going to pay another parents obligation.
> >
> > ONLY of the money really is owed.
>
> This is a given.
>
> It is not unreasonable to expect the
> > state or anyone else to have proper documentation to prove it.
>
> Nor is it unreasonable for the NCP to be expected to have the proper
> documentation that they did infact pay the suppport and that they owe
> the state zilch.

I agree. People should have their affairs and documentation in
order... within reason. However, the state, in the people's interests
(that means *ALL* the people, not just the ones they like), should
recognize when they are wrong and stop immediately when a person does
provide reasonable documentation.

--
Q. Why do Hell's Angels wear leather?
A. Because chiffon wrinkles too easily.
~ Paul Lynde, on Hollywood Squares

[Bob Whiteside]

"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
> Bob wrote:
>
> >"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Mel wrote:
> >>
> >> >And too bad...
> >> >
> >> >Phil #3 wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> "Indyguy1" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > Barb wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>I recently heard from three families where the state of Indiana
was
> >> >> >>reopening decades old child support cases, In each of these cases,
> >the
> >> >> >>child in question is now an adult, two of the children are now 26
> >years
> >> >> >>old.` And not only is the State sueing for back child support,
they
> >were
> >> >> >>also sueing for repayment of funds which the state paid out for
> >medicaid
> >> >> >>and AFDC when the child was a minor.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>I thought all this so unbelievable that just this afternoon I
phoned
> >> >> >>our local Child Support office and I was assured such was
happening.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>To make matters worse, the state presents these law suits against
the
> >> >> >>fathers as if the ex wife has initiated them. And that is flatly
not
> >> >> >>the case. The first these mothers had any clue that these suits
had
> >> >> >>been filed was when they, out of the blue, got a check from the
> >state.
> >> >> >>Without a doubt, the back support these fathers could owe will
amount
> >to
> >> >> >>thousands upon thousands of dollars. Considering the fact that
good
> >> >> >>paying jobs are about as scarce as hen's teeth, can't you imagine
> >the
> >> >> >>stress this will cause fathers who are now well into their
forties.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>And considering the amount of domestic violence usually connected
to
> >> >> >>divorce and chiid support, heaven help us all as the state quietly
> >goes
> >> >> >>about wrecking havoc upon these families.
> >> >> >>barb
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Barb, I'm having a difficult time understanding just what your
beef
> >is
> >> >> > with the
> >> >> > state of Indiana, regarding its desire to collect on past bad
debts.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If you're ticked they waited so long, then I understand. However
if
> >you
> >> >> > are
> >> >> > just angry that they are pursuing these bad debts, then I fail to
> >> >> > understand
> >> >> > your anger. As a tax payer, I too am ticked they waited decades to
> >> >> > collect, but
> >> >> > better late than never.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Mrs Indyguy
> >> >>
> >> >> Too bad they have no interest in the time many of these fathers
> >undoubtedly
> >> >> lost with their children due to the screwed up system that thinks
only
> >of
> >> >> money.
> >> >> Phil #3
> >> >
> >> >the debts may be totally artificial in the first place. Too bad the
> >> >state can "legally" say "you owe" without being able to back up the
> >> >statement with anything more than "we say so".
> >>
> >> My comments were based on the assumption that the money is actually
owed.
> >>
> >> Indyguy believes "you
> >> >owe us because we say you owe us" is a fully legitimate statement. I
> >> >wonder why she sees it differently when I say she owes ME just because
I
> >> >say she owes me?
> >>
> >> Trying to muddy the waters won't change the fact that many tax payers
> >don't
> >> want to support any children other than their own. If I lived in
Indiana
> >I'd be
> >> cheering on the state to get the money back from the parent. I guess
you'd
> >just
> >> be satisfied with your tax dollars going to pay another parents
> >obligation.
> >>
> >> I have no problem helping someone elses children. I had them in my Girl
> >Scout
> >> troops, I was their room mother, I drove them to the mall, etc. But I
have
> >no
> >> interest in paying for their medical care, food, clothing, etc. when
they
> >have
> >> parents that should be doing so.
> >
> >I'm sure you know this - any public assistance money is only repayable by
> >the NCP. The CP who collects the money is presumed to not have the
ability
> >to support her own children. So technically there is no "parents"
> >obligation. It is an NCP parent's obligation to support his children
with
> >the assistance of the taxpayers for any amount over the CS guideline
> >calculation amount.
>
> Yes Bob, I do know this and I don't agree with it. HOWEVER I'd rather see
one
> of the parents pay the tab than the tax payers that aren't related to the
child
> at all.
>
> My views on this are tainted by the fact that I don't believe in public
hand
> outs for anyone. At the VERY least these welfare receipiants (and yes the
NCP
> are included as the other parent of the child) should be working for the
states
> in some capcity, even if it is picking up trash on the highways nights and
> weekends, for ANYTHING they are given.

If I understood what Barb was saying, the NCP's are being subjected to new
CS orders. That means the father's current income will be used to set a CS
order to repay public assistance paid out in the mid-90's. That means the
father's will be overpaying the state because their incomes are higher now.

Most states have laws precluding the setting of new orders after the
children reach the statutory eligibility for CS. Likewise, if an arrearage
exists when children reach the statutory end of the obligation, the CS order
is fixed and cannot be increased.

Perhaps Barb can clear up what is happening in Indiana and the
circumstances.

[Indyguy1]

Bob wrote:

>"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
>> Bob wrote:
>>
>> >"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> Mel wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >And too bad...
>> >> >
>> >> >Phil #3 wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Indyguy1" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> > Barb wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>I recently heard from three families where the state of Indiana
>was
>> >> >> >>reopening decades old child support cases, In each of these cases,
>> >the
>> >> >> >>child in question is now an adult, two of the children are now 26
>> >years
>> >> >> >>old.` And not only is the State sueing for back child support,
>they
>> >were
>> >> >> >>also sueing for repayment of funds which the state paid out for
>> >medicaid
>> >> >> >>and AFDC when the child was a minor.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>I thought all this so unbelievable that just this afternoon I
>phoned
>> >> >> >>our local Child Support office and I was assured such was
>happening.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>To make matters worse, the state presents these law suits against
>the
>> >> >> >>fathers as if the ex wife has initiated them. And that is flatly
>not
>> >> >> >>the case. The first these mothers had any clue that these suits
>had
>> >> >> >>been filed was when they, out of the blue, got a check from the
>> >state.
>> >> >> >>Without a doubt, the back support these fathers could owe will
>amount
>> >to
>> >> >> >>thousands upon thousands of dollars. Considering the fact that
>good
>> >> >> >>paying jobs are about as scarce as hen's teeth, can't you imagine
>> >the
>> >> >> >>stress this will cause fathers who are now well into their
>forties.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>And considering the amount of domestic violence usually connected
>to
>> >> >> >>divorce and chiid support, heaven help us all as the state quietly
>> >goes
>> >> >> >>about wrecking havoc upon these families.
>> >> >> >>barb
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Barb, I'm having a difficult time understanding just what your
>beef
>> >is
>> >> >> > with the
>> >> >> > state of Indiana, regarding its desire to collect on past bad
>debts.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > If you're ticked they waited so long, then I understand. However
>if
>> >you
>> >> >> > are
>> >> >> > just angry that they are pursuing these bad debts, then I fail to
>> >> >> > understand
>> >> >> > your anger. As a tax payer, I too am ticked they waited decades to
>> >> >> > collect, but
>> >> >> > better late than never.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Mrs Indyguy
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Too bad they have no interest in the time many of these fathers
>> >undoubtedly
>> >> >> lost with their children due to the screwed up system that thinks
>only
>> >of
>> >> >> money.
>> >> >> Phil #3
>> >> >
>> >> >the debts may be totally artificial in the first place. Too bad the
>> >> >state can "legally" say "you owe" without being able to back up the
>> >> >statement with anything more than "we say so".
>> >>
>> >> My comments were based on the assumption that the money is actually
>owed.
>> >>
>> >> Indyguy believes "you
>> >> >owe us because we say you owe us" is a fully legitimate statement. I
>> >> >wonder why she sees it differently when I say she owes ME just because
>I
>> >> >say she owes me?
>> >>
>> >> Trying to muddy the waters won't change the fact that many tax payers
>> >don't
>> >> want to support any children other than their own. If I lived in
>Indiana
>> >I'd be
>> >> cheering on the state to get the money back from the parent. I guess
>you'd
>> >just
>> >> be satisfied with your tax dollars going to pay another parents
>> >obligation.
>> >>
>> >> I have no problem helping someone elses children. I had them in my Girl
>> >Scout
>> >> troops, I was their room mother, I drove them to the mall, etc. But I
>have
>> >no
>> >> interest in paying for their medical care, food, clothing, etc. when
>they
>> >have
>> >> parents that should be doing so.
>> >
>> >I'm sure you know this - any public assistance money is only repayable by
>> >the NCP. The CP who collects the money is presumed to not have the
>ability
>> >to support her own children. So technically there is no "parents"
>> >obligation. It is an NCP parent's obligation to support his children
>with
>> >the assistance of the taxpayers for any amount over the CS guideline
>> >calculation amount.
>>
>> Yes Bob, I do know this and I don't agree with it. HOWEVER I'd rather see
>one
>> of the parents pay the tab than the tax payers that aren't related to the
>child
>> at all.
>>
>> My views on this are tainted by the fact that I don't believe in public
>hand
>> outs for anyone. At the VERY least these welfare receipiants (and yes the
>NCP
>> are included as the other parent of the child) should be working for the
>states
>> in some capcity, even if it is picking up trash on the highways nights and
>> weekends, for ANYTHING they are given.
>
>If I understood what Barb was saying, the NCP's are being subjected to new
>CS orders. That means the father's current income will be used to set a CS
>order to repay public assistance paid out in the mid-90's. That means the
>father's will be overpaying the state because their incomes are higher now.

What leads you to believe this? I didn't see anything that even remotely
implied that new orders were being implemented.

>
>Most states have laws precluding the setting of new orders after the
>children reach the statutory eligibility for CS. Likewise, if an arrearage
>exists when children reach the statutory end of the obligation, the CS order
>is fixed and cannot be increased.

Exactly. It sounds like the cases in Indiana are being resurected not newly
constructed.

>
>Perhaps Barb can clear up what is happening in Indiana and the
>circumstances.

That would be nice.

Mrs Indyguy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Indyguy1]

Barb wrote:

>I think it is so wrong for the state to make fathers repay for their non
>custodial children's medical bill and past AFDC.

Why? If he had been paying the court ordered CS then the welfare wouldn't have
been given as a freebee, it would have been paid for by the CS. The NCP is one
of the children's parents, afterall.

After all, this money
>was not 'loaned' to the mother'. ... AFDC was an entitlement and had no
>strings attached.

It's an entitlement for those without the ability to pay for the basics. If
there is a CO requiring CS then that would cover a portion of if not all the
welfare.

And it was the state and the mother, not the father,
>who ran up these doctor bills.

If the children are the NCPs then it *is* the NCPs responsibilty.

To make a father responsible for the
>states past gifts and debts is totally wrong.

What is TOTALLY wrong is for other TAX PAYERS to pick up the tab. You have kids
then you better be ready to pay for them.

It would not happen in the
>the private world of business and it shouldn't happen in the states
>business no matter how financially bankrupt the state is.

Wrong. In the bussiness world you pay for services and the like. The NCP's kids
got the benefits and so the NCP should pay.

Mrs Indyguy

>bab
>
>
>--WebTV-Mail-14003-28213
>Content-Description: signature
>Content-Disposition: Inline
>Content-Type: Text/HTML; Charset=US-ASCII
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
>
><center>
>
>
>--WebTV-Mail-14003-28213--
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Gini]

In article >, Indyguy1 says...
>
>Barb wrote:
>
>>I think it is so wrong for the state to make fathers repay for their non
>>custodial children's medical bill and past AFDC.
>
>Why? If he had been paying the court ordered CS then the welfare wouldn't have
>been given as a freebee, it would have been paid for by the CS. The NCP is one
>of the children's parents, afterall.
====
I went back to read Barb's original post but it isn't on my reader so I don't
know how much support was ordered. However, generally speaking, the amount of
CS paid by an NCP to a state dependent CP/child is rarely enough to move a child
out of poverty and off state aid.
====
====

[teachrmama]

"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
> Mel wrote:
>
>>And too bad...
>>
>>Phil #3 wrote:
>>>
>>> "Indyguy1" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > Barb wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>I recently heard from three families where the state of Indiana was
>>> >>reopening decades old child support cases, In each of these cases, the
>>> >>child in question is now an adult, two of the children are now 26
>>> >>years
>>> >>old.` And not only is the State sueing for back child support, they
>>> >>were
>>> >>also sueing for repayment of funds which the state paid out for
>>> >>medicaid
>>> >>and AFDC when the child was a minor.
>>> >>
>>> >>I thought all this so unbelievable that just this afternoon I phoned
>>> >>our local Child Support office and I was assured such was happening.
>>> >>
>>> >>To make matters worse, the state presents these law suits against the
>>> >>fathers as if the ex wife has initiated them. And that is flatly not
>>> >>the case. The first these mothers had any clue that these suits had
>>> >>been filed was when they, out of the blue, got a check from the state.
>>> >>Without a doubt, the back support these fathers could owe will amount
>>> >>to
>>> >>thousands upon thousands of dollars. Considering the fact that good
>>> >>paying jobs are about as scarce as hen's teeth, can't you imagine the
>>> >>stress this will cause fathers who are now well into their forties.
>>> >>
>>> >>And considering the amount of domestic violence usually connected to
>>> >>divorce and chiid support, heaven help us all as the state quietly
>>> >>goes
>>> >>about wrecking havoc upon these families.
>>> >>barb
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > Barb, I'm having a difficult time understanding just what your beef is
>>> > with the
>>> > state of Indiana, regarding its desire to collect on past bad debts.
>>> >
>>> > If you're ticked they waited so long, then I understand. However if
>>> > you
>>> > are
>>> > just angry that they are pursuing these bad debts, then I fail to
>>> > understand
>>> > your anger. As a tax payer, I too am ticked they waited decades to
>>> > collect, but
>>> > better late than never.
>>> >
>>> > Mrs Indyguy
>>>
>>> Too bad they have no interest in the time many of these fathers
>>> undoubtedly
>>> lost with their children due to the screwed up system that thinks only
>>> of
>>> money.
>>> Phil #3
>>
>>the debts may be totally artificial in the first place. Too bad the
>>state can "legally" say "you owe" without being able to back up the
>>statement with anything more than "we say so".
>
> My comments were based on the assumption that the money is actually owed.
>
> Indyguy believes "you
>>owe us because we say you owe us" is a fully legitimate statement. I
>>wonder why she sees it differently when I say she owes ME just because I
>>say she owes me?
>
> Trying to muddy the waters won't change the fact that many tax payers
> don't
> want to support any children other than their own. If I lived in Indiana
> I'd be
> cheering on the state to get the money back from the parent. I guess you'd
> just
> be satisfied with your tax dollars going to pay another parents
> obligation.
>
> I have no problem helping someone elses children. I had them in my Girl
> Scout
> troops, I was their room mother, I drove them to the mall, etc. But I have
> no
> interest in paying for their medical care, food, clothing, etc. when they
> have
> parents that should be doing so.

Part of the thing that bothers me, Indy, is that the *father* is expected to
pay back the money that was provided by the state--not the mother who
accepted the money. Wouldn't it be more fair if each parent was expected to
pay back a portion? Especially all these years later--why is only the
father held responsible for repaying the funds?

[teachrmama]

"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
> Barb wrote:
>
>>I think it is so wrong for the state to make fathers repay for their non
>>custodial children's medical bill and past AFDC.
>
> Why? If he had been paying the court ordered CS then the welfare wouldn't
> have
> been given as a freebee, it would have been paid for by the CS. The NCP is
> one
> of the children's parents, afterall.
>
> After all, this money
>>was not 'loaned' to the mother'. ... AFDC was an entitlement and had no
>>strings attached.
>
> It's an entitlement for those without the ability to pay for the basics.
> If
> there is a CO requiring CS then that would cover a portion of if not all
> the
> welfare.
>
> And it was the state and the mother, not the father,
>>who ran up these doctor bills.
>
> If the children are the NCPs then it *is* the NCPs responsibilty.
>
> To make a father responsible for the
>>states past gifts and debts is totally wrong.
>
> What is TOTALLY wrong is for other TAX PAYERS to pick up the tab. You have
> kids
> then you better be ready to pay for them.
>
> It would not happen in the
>>the private world of business and it shouldn't happen in the states
>>business no matter how financially bankrupt the state is.
>
> Wrong. In the bussiness world you pay for services and the like. The NCP's
> kids
> got the benefits and so the NCP should pay.

But, Indy, the CP's children got the benefits, so the CP should pay, too.
Why should the CP get a free ride?

[teachrmama]

"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
> Bob wrote:
>
>>"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
>>> Mel wrote:
>>>
>>> >And too bad...
>>> >
>>> >Phil #3 wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> "Indyguy1" > wrote in message
>>> >> ...
>>> >> > Barb wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >>I recently heard from three families where the state of Indiana was
>>> >> >>reopening decades old child support cases, In each of these cases,
>>the
>>> >> >>child in question is now an adult, two of the children are now 26
>>years
>>> >> >>old.` And not only is the State sueing for back child support, they
>>were
>>> >> >>also sueing for repayment of funds which the state paid out for
>>medicaid
>>> >> >>and AFDC when the child was a minor.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>I thought all this so unbelievable that just this afternoon I
>>> >> >>phoned
>>> >> >>our local Child Support office and I was assured such was
>>> >> >>happening.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>To make matters worse, the state presents these law suits against
>>> >> >>the
>>> >> >>fathers as if the ex wife has initiated them. And that is flatly
>>> >> >>not
>>> >> >>the case. The first these mothers had any clue that these suits
>>> >> >>had
>>> >> >>been filed was when they, out of the blue, got a check from the
>>state.
>>> >> >>Without a doubt, the back support these fathers could owe will
>>> >> >>amount
>>to
>>> >> >>thousands upon thousands of dollars. Considering the fact that
>>> >> >>good
>>> >> >>paying jobs are about as scarce as hen's teeth, can't you imagine
>>the
>>> >> >>stress this will cause fathers who are now well into their forties.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>And considering the amount of domestic violence usually connected
>>> >> >>to
>>> >> >>divorce and chiid support, heaven help us all as the state quietly
>>goes
>>> >> >>about wrecking havoc upon these families.
>>> >> >>barb
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Barb, I'm having a difficult time understanding just what your beef
>>is
>>> >> > with the
>>> >> > state of Indiana, regarding its desire to collect on past bad
>>> >> > debts.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > If you're ticked they waited so long, then I understand. However if
>>you
>>> >> > are
>>> >> > just angry that they are pursuing these bad debts, then I fail to
>>> >> > understand
>>> >> > your anger. As a tax payer, I too am ticked they waited decades to
>>> >> > collect, but
>>> >> > better late than never.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Mrs Indyguy
>>> >>
>>> >> Too bad they have no interest in the time many of these fathers
>>undoubtedly
>>> >> lost with their children due to the screwed up system that thinks
>>> >> only
>>of
>>> >> money.
>>> >> Phil #3
>>> >
>>> >the debts may be totally artificial in the first place. Too bad the
>>> >state can "legally" say "you owe" without being able to back up the
>>> >statement with anything more than "we say so".
>>>
>>> My comments were based on the assumption that the money is actually
>>> owed.
>>>
>>> Indyguy believes "you
>>> >owe us because we say you owe us" is a fully legitimate statement. I
>>> >wonder why she sees it differently when I say she owes ME just because
>>> >I
>>> >say she owes me?
>>>
>>> Trying to muddy the waters won't change the fact that many tax payers
>>don't
>>> want to support any children other than their own. If I lived in Indiana
>>I'd be
>>> cheering on the state to get the money back from the parent. I guess
>>> you'd
>>just
>>> be satisfied with your tax dollars going to pay another parents
>>obligation.
>>>
>>> I have no problem helping someone elses children. I had them in my Girl
>>Scout
>>> troops, I was their room mother, I drove them to the mall, etc. But I
>>> have
>>no
>>> interest in paying for their medical care, food, clothing, etc. when
>>> they
>>have
>>> parents that should be doing so.
>>
>>I'm sure you know this - any public assistance money is only repayable by
>>the NCP. The CP who collects the money is presumed to not have the
>>ability
>>to support her own children. So technically there is no "parents"
>>obligation. It is an NCP parent's obligation to support his children with
>>the assistance of the taxpayers for any amount over the CS guideline
>>calculation amount.
>
> Yes Bob, I do know this and I don't agree with it. HOWEVER I'd rather see
> one
> of the parents pay the tab than the tax payers that aren't related to the
> child
> at all.
>
> My views on this are tainted by the fact that I don't believe in public
> hand
> outs for anyone. At the VERY least these welfare receipiants (and yes the
> NCP
> are included as the other parent of the child) should be working for the
> states
> in some capcity, even if it is picking up trash on the highways nights and
> weekends, for ANYTHING they are given.

And if they refuse to do so? Do you think they be jailed, as the NCP can
for not paying CS?

[Mel Gamble]

I will give you...

Indyguy1 wrote:
>
> Mel wrote:
>
> >And too bad...
> >
> >Phil #3 wrote:
> >>
> >> "Indyguy1" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > Barb wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>I recently heard from three families where the state of Indiana was
> >> >>reopening decades old child support cases, In each of these cases, the
> >> >>child in question is now an adult, two of the children are now 26 years
> >> >>old.` And not only is the State sueing for back child support, they were
> >> >>also sueing for repayment of funds which the state paid out for medicaid
> >> >>and AFDC when the child was a minor.
> >> >>
> >> >>I thought all this so unbelievable that just this afternoon I phoned
> >> >>our local Child Support office and I was assured such was happening.
> >> >>
> >> >>To make matters worse, the state presents these law suits against the
> >> >>fathers as if the ex wife has initiated them. And that is flatly not
> >> >>the case. The first these mothers had any clue that these suits had
> >> >>been filed was when they, out of the blue, got a check from the state.
> >> >>Without a doubt, the back support these fathers could owe will amount to
> >> >>thousands upon thousands of dollars. Considering the fact that good
> >> >>paying jobs are about as scarce as hen's teeth, can't you imagine the
> >> >>stress this will cause fathers who are now well into their forties.
> >> >>
> >> >>And considering the amount of domestic violence usually connected to
> >> >>divorce and chiid support, heaven help us all as the state quietly goes
> >> >>about wrecking havoc upon these families.
> >> >>barb
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Barb, I'm having a difficult time understanding just what your beef is
> >> > with the
> >> > state of Indiana, regarding its desire to collect on past bad debts.
> >> >
> >> > If you're ticked they waited so long, then I understand. However if you
> >> > are
> >> > just angry that they are pursuing these bad debts, then I fail to
> >> > understand
> >> > your anger. As a tax payer, I too am ticked they waited decades to
> >> > collect, but
> >> > better late than never.
> >> >
> >> > Mrs Indyguy
> >>
> >> Too bad they have no interest in the time many of these fathers undoubtedly
> >> lost with their children due to the screwed up system that thinks only of
> >> money.
> >> Phil #3
> >
> >the debts may be totally artificial in the first place. Too bad the
> >state can "legally" say "you owe" without being able to back up the
> >statement with anything more than "we say so".
>
> My comments were based on the assumption that the money is actually owed.

....the assumption that money in some amount may be owed. I will NOT
give you the assumption you always make that the amount the state
demands is just fine and reasonable. I will also NOT give you the
assumption you always make that it's only owed by the non-custodial
parent - why don't you insist equally loudly that the custodial parent
repay what THEY PERSONALLY used? Not to mention their share of what the
kids used?

> Indyguy believes "you
> >owe us because we say you owe us" is a fully legitimate statement. I
> >wonder why she sees it differently when I say she owes ME just because I
> >say she owes me?
>
> Trying to muddy the waters won't change the fact that many tax payers don't
> want to support any children other than their own.

Trying to make it an issue of what taxpayers want to pay or not pay for
is muddying the real issue, which is the state being "legally" able to
force men to pay for women's decisions, even when those decisions are
NOT in the best interests of the children of those men.

> If I lived in Indiana I'd be
> cheering on the state to get the money back from the parent.

It was soooo kind of you to use "parent" in the singular...thank you for
emphasizing my point.

> I guess you'd just
> be satisfied with your tax dollars going to pay another parents obligation.

And you're satisfied with the state pointing at an individual taxpayer
and saying "you're going to totally support the programs we've developed
for this woman...." Why, Indyguy, don't you whine about the women
receiving the benefits and how they never have to repay anything? Why
do you only whine that the father should repay the state for the food
the mother ate? Why do you whine that the father should repay the state
for the roof they put over the mother's head? Why do you whine that the
father should repay the state for the money they gave the mother to buy
her alcohol and abuse his kids?

Mel Gamble

> I have no problem helping someone elses children. I had them in my Girl Scout
> troops, I was their room mother, I drove them to the mall, etc. But I have no
> interest in paying for their medical care, food, clothing, etc. when they have
> parents that should be doing so.
>
> Mrs Indyguy
> >
> >Mel Gamble
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

[Mel Gamble]

Selfish bitch...

Indyguy1 wrote:
>
> Bob wrote:
>
> >"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Mel wrote:
> >>
> >> >And too bad...
> >> >
> >> >Phil #3 wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> "Indyguy1" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > Barb wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>I recently heard from three families where the state of Indiana was
> >> >> >>reopening decades old child support cases, In each of these cases,
> >the
> >> >> >>child in question is now an adult, two of the children are now 26
> >years
> >> >> >>old.` And not only is the State sueing for back child support, they
> >were
> >> >> >>also sueing for repayment of funds which the state paid out for
> >medicaid
> >> >> >>and AFDC when the child was a minor.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>I thought all this so unbelievable that just this afternoon I phoned
> >> >> >>our local Child Support office and I was assured such was happening.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>To make matters worse, the state presents these law suits against the
> >> >> >>fathers as if the ex wife has initiated them. And that is flatly not
> >> >> >>the case. The first these mothers had any clue that these suits had
> >> >> >>been filed was when they, out of the blue, got a check from the
> >state.
> >> >> >>Without a doubt, the back support these fathers could owe will amount
> >to
> >> >> >>thousands upon thousands of dollars. Considering the fact that good
> >> >> >>paying jobs are about as scarce as hen's teeth, can't you imagine
> >the
> >> >> >>stress this will cause fathers who are now well into their forties.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>And considering the amount of domestic violence usually connected to
> >> >> >>divorce and chiid support, heaven help us all as the state quietly
> >goes
> >> >> >>about wrecking havoc upon these families.
> >> >> >>barb
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Barb, I'm having a difficult time understanding just what your beef
> >is
> >> >> > with the
> >> >> > state of Indiana, regarding its desire to collect on past bad debts.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If you're ticked they waited so long, then I understand. However if
> >you
> >> >> > are
> >> >> > just angry that they are pursuing these bad debts, then I fail to
> >> >> > understand
> >> >> > your anger. As a tax payer, I too am ticked they waited decades to
> >> >> > collect, but
> >> >> > better late than never.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Mrs Indyguy
> >> >>
> >> >> Too bad they have no interest in the time many of these fathers
> >undoubtedly
> >> >> lost with their children due to the screwed up system that thinks only
> >of
> >> >> money.
> >> >> Phil #3
> >> >
> >> >the debts may be totally artificial in the first place. Too bad the
> >> >state can "legally" say "you owe" without being able to back up the
> >> >statement with anything more than "we say so".
> >>
> >> My comments were based on the assumption that the money is actually owed.
> >>
> >> Indyguy believes "you
> >> >owe us because we say you owe us" is a fully legitimate statement. I
> >> >wonder why she sees it differently when I say she owes ME just because I
> >> >say she owes me?
> >>
> >> Trying to muddy the waters won't change the fact that many tax payers
> >don't
> >> want to support any children other than their own. If I lived in Indiana
> >I'd be
> >> cheering on the state to get the money back from the parent. I guess you'd
> >just
> >> be satisfied with your tax dollars going to pay another parents
> >obligation.
> >>
> >> I have no problem helping someone elses children. I had them in my Girl
> >Scout
> >> troops, I was their room mother, I drove them to the mall, etc. But I have
> >no
> >> interest in paying for their medical care, food, clothing, etc. when they
> >have
> >> parents that should be doing so.
> >
> >I'm sure you know this - any public assistance money is only repayable by
> >the NCP. The CP who collects the money is presumed to not have the ability
> >to support her own children. So technically there is no "parents"
> >obligation. It is an NCP parent's obligation to support his children with
> >the assistance of the taxpayers for any amount over the CS guideline
> >calculation amount.
>
> Yes Bob, I do know this and I don't agree with it. HOWEVER I'd rather see one
> of the parents pay the tab than the tax payers that aren't related to the child
> at all.

....it is no more fair to make me pay for mommy's trips to her
boyfreind's home than it is to make the state (taxpayers) pay for
it.....except that the state decided SHE should have that money and I
didn't.

> My views on this are tainted by the fact that I don't believe in public hand
> outs for anyone. At the VERY least these welfare receipiants (and yes the NCP
> are included as the other parent of the child) should be working for the states
> in some capcity, even if it is picking up trash on the highways nights and
> weekends, for ANYTHING they are given.

Anything but giving kids to parents who love and are willing to support
them, right old broad?

Mel Gamble

> Mrs Indyguy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

[barb 702]

[Indyguy1]

Teach wrote:

>"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
>> Mel wrote:
>>
>>>And too bad...
>>>
>>>Phil #3 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Indyguy1" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> > Barb wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >>I recently heard from three families where the state of Indiana was
>>>> >>reopening decades old child support cases, In each of these cases, the
>>>> >>child in question is now an adult, two of the children are now 26
>>>> >>years
>>>> >>old.` And not only is the State sueing for back child support, they
>>>> >>were
>>>> >>also sueing for repayment of funds which the state paid out for
>>>> >>medicaid
>>>> >>and AFDC when the child was a minor.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>I thought all this so unbelievable that just this afternoon I phoned
>>>> >>our local Child Support office and I was assured such was happening.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>To make matters worse, the state presents these law suits against the
>>>> >>fathers as if the ex wife has initiated them. And that is flatly not
>>>> >>the case. The first these mothers had any clue that these suits had
>>>> >>been filed was when they, out of the blue, got a check from the state.
>>>> >>Without a doubt, the back support these fathers could owe will amount
>>>> >>to
>>>> >>thousands upon thousands of dollars. Considering the fact that good
>>>> >>paying jobs are about as scarce as hen's teeth, can't you imagine the
>>>> >>stress this will cause fathers who are now well into their forties.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>And considering the amount of domestic violence usually connected to
>>>> >>divorce and chiid support, heaven help us all as the state quietly
>>>> >>goes
>>>> >>about wrecking havoc upon these families.
>>>> >>barb
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> > Barb, I'm having a difficult time understanding just what your beef is
>>>> > with the
>>>> > state of Indiana, regarding its desire to collect on past bad debts.
>>>> >
>>>> > If you're ticked they waited so long, then I understand. However if
>>>> > you
>>>> > are
>>>> > just angry that they are pursuing these bad debts, then I fail to
>>>> > understand
>>>> > your anger. As a tax payer, I too am ticked they waited decades to
>>>> > collect, but
>>>> > better late than never.
>>>> >
>>>> > Mrs Indyguy
>>>>
>>>> Too bad they have no interest in the time many of these fathers
>>>> undoubtedly
>>>> lost with their children due to the screwed up system that thinks only
>>>> of
>>>> money.
>>>> Phil #3
>>>
>>>the debts may be totally artificial in the first place. Too bad the
>>>state can "legally" say "you owe" without being able to back up the
>>>statement with anything more than "we say so".
>>
>> My comments were based on the assumption that the money is actually owed.
>>
>> Indyguy believes "you
>>>owe us because we say you owe us" is a fully legitimate statement. I
>>>wonder why she sees it differently when I say she owes ME just because I
>>>say she owes me?
>>
>> Trying to muddy the waters won't change the fact that many tax payers
>> don't
>> want to support any children other than their own. If I lived in Indiana
>> I'd be
>> cheering on the state to get the money back from the parent. I guess you'd
>> just
>> be satisfied with your tax dollars going to pay another parents
>> obligation.
>>
>> I have no problem helping someone elses children. I had them in my Girl
>> Scout
>> troops, I was their room mother, I drove them to the mall, etc. But I have
>> no
>> interest in paying for their medical care, food, clothing, etc. when they
>> have
>> parents that should be doing so.
>
>Part of the thing that bothers me, Indy, is that the *father* is expected to
>pay back the money that was provided by the state--not the mother who
>accepted the money. Wouldn't it be more fair if each parent was expected to
>pay back a portion? Especially all these years later--why is only the
>father held responsible for repaying the funds?

I totally agree, BOTH should be paying it back.

Mrs Indyguy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Indyguy1]

Mel wrote:

>I will give you...
>
>Indyguy1 wrote:
>>
>> Mel wrote:
>>
>> >And too bad...
>> >
>> >Phil #3 wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Indyguy1" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > Barb wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>I recently heard from three families where the state of Indiana was
>> >> >>reopening decades old child support cases, In each of these cases, the
>> >> >>child in question is now an adult, two of the children are now 26
>years
>> >> >>old.` And not only is the State sueing for back child support, they
>were
>> >> >>also sueing for repayment of funds which the state paid out for
>medicaid
>> >> >>and AFDC when the child was a minor.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>I thought all this so unbelievable that just this afternoon I phoned
>> >> >>our local Child Support office and I was assured such was happening.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>To make matters worse, the state presents these law suits against the
>> >> >>fathers as if the ex wife has initiated them. And that is flatly not
>> >> >>the case. The first these mothers had any clue that these suits had
>> >> >>been filed was when they, out of the blue, got a check from the state.
>> >> >>Without a doubt, the back support these fathers could owe will amount
>to
>> >> >>thousands upon thousands of dollars. Considering the fact that good
>> >> >>paying jobs are about as scarce as hen's teeth, can't you imagine the
>> >> >>stress this will cause fathers who are now well into their forties.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>And considering the amount of domestic violence usually connected to
>> >> >>divorce and chiid support, heaven help us all as the state quietly
>goes
>> >> >>about wrecking havoc upon these families.
>> >> >>barb
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Barb, I'm having a difficult time understanding just what your beef is
>> >> > with the
>> >> > state of Indiana, regarding its desire to collect on past bad debts.
>> >> >
>> >> > If you're ticked they waited so long, then I understand. However if
>you
>> >> > are
>> >> > just angry that they are pursuing these bad debts, then I fail to
>> >> > understand
>> >> > your anger. As a tax payer, I too am ticked they waited decades to
>> >> > collect, but
>> >> > better late than never.
>> >> >
>> >> > Mrs Indyguy
>> >>
>> >> Too bad they have no interest in the time many of these fathers
>undoubtedly
>> >> lost with their children due to the screwed up system that thinks only
>of
>> >> money.
>> >> Phil #3
>> >
>> >the debts may be totally artificial in the first place. Too bad the
>> >state can "legally" say "you owe" without being able to back up the
>> >statement with anything more than "we say so".
>>
>> My comments were based on the assumption that the money is actually owed.
>
>...the assumption that money in some amount may be owed.

Now big of you. :)

I will NOT
>give you the assumption you always make that the amount the state
>demands is just fine and reasonable.

I made this assumption when?

I will also NOT give you the
>assumption you always make that it's only owed by the non-custodial
>parent - why don't you insist equally loudly that the custodial parent
>repay what THEY PERSONALLY used? Not to mention their share of what the
>kids used?

Not only do I feel BOTH should be paying back, I don't believe in ANY free
welfare for anyone.


>
>> Indyguy believes "you
>> >owe us because we say you owe us" is a fully legitimate statement. I
>> >wonder why she sees it differently when I say she owes ME just because I
>> >say she owes me?
>>
>> Trying to muddy the waters won't change the fact that many tax payers don't
>> want to support any children other than their own.
>
>Trying to make it an issue of what taxpayers want to pay or not pay for
>is muddying the real issue, which is the state being "legally" able to
>force men to pay for women's decisions, even when those decisions are
>NOT in the best interests of the children of those men.

Come on. How many people do you know would want their tax dollars going to
support children that have at least one parent who is capable of doing so
themselves?

>
>> If I lived in Indiana I'd be
>> cheering on the state to get the money back from the parent.
>
>It was soooo kind of you to use "parent" in the singular...thank you for
>emphasizing my point.

You're welcome. :)

>
>> I guess you'd just
>> be satisfied with your tax dollars going to pay another parents obligation.
>
>And you're satisfied with the state pointing at an individual taxpayer
>and saying "you're going to totally support the programs we've developed
>for this woman...." Why, Indyguy, don't you whine about the women
>receiving the benefits and how they never have to repay anything?

I do, all the time IRL.

Why
>do you only whine that the father should repay the state for the food
>the mother ate?

Go back to my initial post, to I believe, Bob.

Why do you whine that the father should repay the state
>for the roof they put over the mother's head?

See above.

Why do you whine that the
>father should repay the state for the money they gave the mother to buy
>her alcohol and abuse his kids?

LOL.

Mrs Indyguy
>
>Mel Gamble
>
>> I have no problem helping someone elses children. I had them in my Girl
>Scout
>> troops, I was their room mother, I drove them to the mall, etc. But I have
>no
>> interest in paying for their medical care, food, clothing, etc. when they
>have
>> parents that should be doing so.
>>
>> Mrs Indyguy
>> >
>> >Mel Gamble
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Indyguy1]

Teach wrote:

>"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
>> Bob wrote:
>>
>>>"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
>>>> Mel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >And too bad...
>>>> >
>>>> >Phil #3 wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> "Indyguy1" > wrote in message
>>>> >> ...
>>>> >> > Barb wrote:
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >>I recently heard from three families where the state of Indiana was
>>>> >> >>reopening decades old child support cases, In each of these cases,
>>>the
>>>> >> >>child in question is now an adult, two of the children are now 26
>>>years
>>>> >> >>old.` And not only is the State sueing for back child support, they
>>>were
>>>> >> >>also sueing for repayment of funds which the state paid out for
>>>medicaid
>>>> >> >>and AFDC when the child was a minor.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >>I thought all this so unbelievable that just this afternoon I
>>>> >> >>phoned
>>>> >> >>our local Child Support office and I was assured such was
>>>> >> >>happening.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >>To make matters worse, the state presents these law suits against
>>>> >> >>the
>>>> >> >>fathers as if the ex wife has initiated them. And that is flatly
>>>> >> >>not
>>>> >> >>the case. The first these mothers had any clue that these suits
>>>> >> >>had
>>>> >> >>been filed was when they, out of the blue, got a check from the
>>>state.
>>>> >> >>Without a doubt, the back support these fathers could owe will
>>>> >> >>amount
>>>to
>>>> >> >>thousands upon thousands of dollars. Considering the fact that
>>>> >> >>good
>>>> >> >>paying jobs are about as scarce as hen's teeth, can't you imagine
>>>the
>>>> >> >>stress this will cause fathers who are now well into their forties.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >>And considering the amount of domestic violence usually connected
>>>> >> >>to
>>>> >> >>divorce and chiid support, heaven help us all as the state quietly
>>>goes
>>>> >> >>about wrecking havoc upon these families.
>>>> >> >>barb
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Barb, I'm having a difficult time understanding just what your beef
>>>is
>>>> >> > with the
>>>> >> > state of Indiana, regarding its desire to collect on past bad
>>>> >> > debts.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > If you're ticked they waited so long, then I understand. However if
>>>you
>>>> >> > are
>>>> >> > just angry that they are pursuing these bad debts, then I fail to
>>>> >> > understand
>>>> >> > your anger. As a tax payer, I too am ticked they waited decades to
>>>> >> > collect, but
>>>> >> > better late than never.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Mrs Indyguy
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Too bad they have no interest in the time many of these fathers
>>>undoubtedly
>>>> >> lost with their children due to the screwed up system that thinks
>>>> >> only
>>>of
>>>> >> money.
>>>> >> Phil #3
>>>> >
>>>> >the debts may be totally artificial in the first place. Too bad the
>>>> >state can "legally" say "you owe" without being able to back up the
>>>> >statement with anything more than "we say so".
>>>>
>>>> My comments were based on the assumption that the money is actually
>>>> owed.
>>>>
>>>> Indyguy believes "you
>>>> >owe us because we say you owe us" is a fully legitimate statement. I
>>>> >wonder why she sees it differently when I say she owes ME just because
>>>> >I
>>>> >say she owes me?
>>>>
>>>> Trying to muddy the waters won't change the fact that many tax payers
>>>don't
>>>> want to support any children other than their own. If I lived in Indiana
>>>I'd be
>>>> cheering on the state to get the money back from the parent. I guess
>>>> you'd
>>>just
>>>> be satisfied with your tax dollars going to pay another parents
>>>obligation.
>>>>
>>>> I have no problem helping someone elses children. I had them in my Girl
>>>Scout
>>>> troops, I was their room mother, I drove them to the mall, etc. But I
>>>> have
>>>no
>>>> interest in paying for their medical care, food, clothing, etc. when
>>>> they
>>>have
>>>> parents that should be doing so.
>>>
>>>I'm sure you know this - any public assistance money is only repayable by
>>>the NCP. The CP who collects the money is presumed to not have the
>>>ability
>>>to support her own children. So technically there is no "parents"
>>>obligation. It is an NCP parent's obligation to support his children with
>>>the assistance of the taxpayers for any amount over the CS guideline
>>>calculation amount.
>>
>> Yes Bob, I do know this and I don't agree with it. HOWEVER I'd rather see
>> one
>> of the parents pay the tab than the tax payers that aren't related to the
>> child
>> at all.
>>
>> My views on this are tainted by the fact that I don't believe in public
>> hand
>> outs for anyone. At the VERY least these welfare receipiants (and yes the
>> NCP
>> are included as the other parent of the child) should be working for the
>> states
>> in some capcity, even if it is picking up trash on the highways nights and
>> weekends, for ANYTHING they are given.
>
>And if they refuse to do so? Do you think they be jailed, as the NCP can
>for not paying CS?

They won't work for the state supplied support then they don't get one red
cent. If they don't get the state supplied money then they loose their kids for
endangering them. Then after that they can either live in box or get a job.

Mrs Indyguy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Indyguy1]

Mel wrote:

>Selfish bitch...

LOL, you've called me worse.

>
>Indyguy1 wrote:
>>
>> Bob wrote:
>>
>> >"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> Mel wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >And too bad...
>> >> >
>> >> >Phil #3 wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Indyguy1" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> > Barb wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>I recently heard from three families where the state of Indiana was
>> >> >> >>reopening decades old child support cases, In each of these cases,
>> >the
>> >> >> >>child in question is now an adult, two of the children are now 26
>> >years
>> >> >> >>old.` And not only is the State sueing for back child support, they
>> >were
>> >> >> >>also sueing for repayment of funds which the state paid out for
>> >medicaid
>> >> >> >>and AFDC when the child was a minor.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>I thought all this so unbelievable that just this afternoon I
>phoned
>> >> >> >>our local Child Support office and I was assured such was
>happening.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>To make matters worse, the state presents these law suits against
>the
>> >> >> >>fathers as if the ex wife has initiated them. And that is flatly
>not
>> >> >> >>the case. The first these mothers had any clue that these suits
>had
>> >> >> >>been filed was when they, out of the blue, got a check from the
>> >state.
>> >> >> >>Without a doubt, the back support these fathers could owe will
>amount
>> >to
>> >> >> >>thousands upon thousands of dollars. Considering the fact that
>good
>> >> >> >>paying jobs are about as scarce as hen's teeth, can't you imagine
>> >the
>> >> >> >>stress this will cause fathers who are now well into their forties.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>And considering the amount of domestic violence usually connected
>to
>> >> >> >>divorce and chiid support, heaven help us all as the state quietly
>> >goes
>> >> >> >>about wrecking havoc upon these families.
>> >> >> >>barb
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Barb, I'm having a difficult time understanding just what your beef
>> >is
>> >> >> > with the
>> >> >> > state of Indiana, regarding its desire to collect on past bad
>debts.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > If you're ticked they waited so long, then I understand. However if
>> >you
>> >> >> > are
>> >> >> > just angry that they are pursuing these bad debts, then I fail to
>> >> >> > understand
>> >> >> > your anger. As a tax payer, I too am ticked they waited decades to
>> >> >> > collect, but
>> >> >> > better late than never.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Mrs Indyguy
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Too bad they have no interest in the time many of these fathers
>> >undoubtedly
>> >> >> lost with their children due to the screwed up system that thinks
>only
>> >of
>> >> >> money.
>> >> >> Phil #3
>> >> >
>> >> >the debts may be totally artificial in the first place. Too bad the
>> >> >state can "legally" say "you owe" without being able to back up the
>> >> >statement with anything more than "we say so".
>> >>
>> >> My comments were based on the assumption that the money is actually
>owed.
>> >>
>> >> Indyguy believes "you
>> >> >owe us because we say you owe us" is a fully legitimate statement. I
>> >> >wonder why she sees it differently when I say she owes ME just because
>I
>> >> >say she owes me?
>> >>
>> >> Trying to muddy the waters won't change the fact that many tax payers
>> >don't
>> >> want to support any children other than their own. If I lived in Indiana
>> >I'd be
>> >> cheering on the state to get the money back from the parent. I guess
>you'd
>> >just
>> >> be satisfied with your tax dollars going to pay another parents
>> >obligation.
>> >>
>> >> I have no problem helping someone elses children. I had them in my Girl
>> >Scout
>> >> troops, I was their room mother, I drove them to the mall, etc. But I
>have
>> >no
>> >> interest in paying for their medical care, food, clothing, etc. when
>they
>> >have
>> >> parents that should be doing so.
>> >
>> >I'm sure you know this - any public assistance money is only repayable by
>> >the NCP. The CP who collects the money is presumed to not have the
>ability
>> >to support her own children. So technically there is no "parents"
>> >obligation. It is an NCP parent's obligation to support his children with
>> >the assistance of the taxpayers for any amount over the CS guideline
>> >calculation amount.
>>
>> Yes Bob, I do know this and I don't agree with it. HOWEVER I'd rather see
>one
>> of the parents pay the tab than the tax payers that aren't related to the
>child
>> at all.
>
>...it is no more fair to make me pay for mommy's trips to her
>boyfreind's home than it is to make the state (taxpayers) pay for
>it.....except that the state decided SHE should have that money and I
>didn't.

You inpregnated a piece of garbage that would spend CS on things other than her
child, the rest of the tax payers didn't.

>
>> My views on this are tainted by the fact that I don't believe in public
>hand
>> outs for anyone. At the VERY least these welfare receipiants (and yes the
>NCP
>> are included as the other parent of the child) should be working for the
>states
>> in some capcity, even if it is picking up trash on the highways nights and
>> weekends, for ANYTHING they are given.
>
>Anything but giving kids to parents who love and are willing to support
>them, right old broad?

You dunce. I believe BOTH should be accountable and if Mommy won't work for the
state support she should loose the kids. Give them to the father, if he'll have
them, that is.

Mrs Indyguy
>
>Mel Gamble
>
>> Mrs Indyguy
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Indyguy1]

barb wrote:

<snip to>

>The money the state paid out for AFDC was alloted by the government.
>Just as the money for, say, the Highway department etc. was alloted by
>the State..


I wish there was somewhere I could sign up to have my tax dollars go to fix the
roads. I'd rather see my money at work than supporting those that refuse to.

Mrs Indyguy

[teachrmama]

"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
> Teach wrote:
>
>>"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
>>> Bob wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
>>>>> Mel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >And too bad...
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Phil #3 wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> "Indyguy1" > wrote in message
>>>>> >> ...
>>>>> >> > Barb wrote:
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >>I recently heard from three families where the state of Indiana
>>>>> >> >>was
>>>>> >> >>reopening decades old child support cases, In each of these
>>>>> >> >>cases,
>>>>the
>>>>> >> >>child in question is now an adult, two of the children are now
>>>>> >> >>26
>>>>years
>>>>> >> >>old.` And not only is the State sueing for back child support,
>>>>> >> >>they
>>>>were
>>>>> >> >>also sueing for repayment of funds which the state paid out for
>>>>medicaid
>>>>> >> >>and AFDC when the child was a minor.
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >>I thought all this so unbelievable that just this afternoon I
>>>>> >> >>phoned
>>>>> >> >>our local Child Support office and I was assured such was
>>>>> >> >>happening.
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >>To make matters worse, the state presents these law suits against
>>>>> >> >>the
>>>>> >> >>fathers as if the ex wife has initiated them. And that is flatly
>>>>> >> >>not
>>>>> >> >>the case. The first these mothers had any clue that these suits
>>>>> >> >>had
>>>>> >> >>been filed was when they, out of the blue, got a check from the
>>>>state.
>>>>> >> >>Without a doubt, the back support these fathers could owe will
>>>>> >> >>amount
>>>>to
>>>>> >> >>thousands upon thousands of dollars. Considering the fact that
>>>>> >> >>good
>>>>> >> >>paying jobs are about as scarce as hen's teeth, can't you
>>>>> >> >>imagine
>>>>the
>>>>> >> >>stress this will cause fathers who are now well into their
>>>>> >> >>forties.
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >>And considering the amount of domestic violence usually connected
>>>>> >> >>to
>>>>> >> >>divorce and chiid support, heaven help us all as the state
>>>>> >> >>quietly
>>>>goes
>>>>> >> >>about wrecking havoc upon these families.
>>>>> >> >>barb
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > Barb, I'm having a difficult time understanding just what your
>>>>> >> > beef
>>>>is
>>>>> >> > with the
>>>>> >> > state of Indiana, regarding its desire to collect on past bad
>>>>> >> > debts.
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > If you're ticked they waited so long, then I understand. However
>>>>> >> > if
>>>>you
>>>>> >> > are
>>>>> >> > just angry that they are pursuing these bad debts, then I fail to
>>>>> >> > understand
>>>>> >> > your anger. As a tax payer, I too am ticked they waited decades
>>>>> >> > to
>>>>> >> > collect, but
>>>>> >> > better late than never.
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > Mrs Indyguy
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Too bad they have no interest in the time many of these fathers
>>>>undoubtedly
>>>>> >> lost with their children due to the screwed up system that thinks
>>>>> >> only
>>>>of
>>>>> >> money.
>>>>> >> Phil #3
>>>>> >
>>>>> >the debts may be totally artificial in the first place. Too bad the
>>>>> >state can "legally" say "you owe" without being able to back up the
>>>>> >statement with anything more than "we say so".
>>>>>
>>>>> My comments were based on the assumption that the money is actually
>>>>> owed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Indyguy believes "you
>>>>> >owe us because we say you owe us" is a fully legitimate statement. I
>>>>> >wonder why she sees it differently when I say she owes ME just
>>>>> >because
>>>>> >I
>>>>> >say she owes me?
>>>>>
>>>>> Trying to muddy the waters won't change the fact that many tax payers
>>>>don't
>>>>> want to support any children other than their own. If I lived in
>>>>> Indiana
>>>>I'd be
>>>>> cheering on the state to get the money back from the parent. I guess
>>>>> you'd
>>>>just
>>>>> be satisfied with your tax dollars going to pay another parents
>>>>obligation.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no problem helping someone elses children. I had them in my
>>>>> Girl
>>>>Scout
>>>>> troops, I was their room mother, I drove them to the mall, etc. But I
>>>>> have
>>>>no
>>>>> interest in paying for their medical care, food, clothing, etc. when
>>>>> they
>>>>have
>>>>> parents that should be doing so.
>>>>
>>>>I'm sure you know this - any public assistance money is only repayable
>>>>by
>>>>the NCP. The CP who collects the money is presumed to not have the
>>>>ability
>>>>to support her own children. So technically there is no "parents"
>>>>obligation. It is an NCP parent's obligation to support his children
>>>>with
>>>>the assistance of the taxpayers for any amount over the CS guideline
>>>>calculation amount.
>>>
>>> Yes Bob, I do know this and I don't agree with it. HOWEVER I'd rather
>>> see
>>> one
>>> of the parents pay the tab than the tax payers that aren't related to
>>> the
>>> child
>>> at all.
>>>
>>> My views on this are tainted by the fact that I don't believe in public
>>> hand
>>> outs for anyone. At the VERY least these welfare receipiants (and yes
>>> the
>>> NCP
>>> are included as the other parent of the child) should be working for the
>>> states
>>> in some capcity, even if it is picking up trash on the highways nights
>>> and
>>> weekends, for ANYTHING they are given.
>>
>>And if they refuse to do so? Do you think they be jailed, as the NCP can
>>for not paying CS?
>
> They won't work for the state supplied support then they don't get one red
> cent. If they don't get the state supplied money then they loose their
> kids for
> endangering them. Then after that they can either live in box or get a
> job.

That sounds good to me! Now, do you get accused of wanting to create
state-run orphanages for expressing such views?

[Indyguy1]

Teach wrote:

<snip to>


>>>> My views on this are tainted by the fact that I don't believe in public
>>>> hand
>>>> outs for anyone. At the VERY least these welfare receipiants (and yes
>>>> the
>>>> NCP
>>>> are included as the other parent of the child) should be working for the
>>>> states
>>>> in some capcity, even if it is picking up trash on the highways nights
>>>> and
>>>> weekends, for ANYTHING they are given.
>>>
>>>And if they refuse to do so? Do you think they be jailed, as the NCP can
>>>for not paying CS?
>>
>> They won't work for the state supplied support then they don't get one red
>> cent. If they don't get the state supplied money then they loose their
>> kids for
>> endangering them. Then after that they can either live in box or get a
>> job.
>
>That sounds good to me! Now, do you get accused of wanting to create
>state-run orphanages for expressing such views?

Teach, you surprise me! Why would anyone say such a thing? We all know that the
NCPs out there are just chomping at the bit to raise their children full time.
There'd be no need for orphanages with all those dads out there that can raise
the children on a small fraction of what the government currently extorts from
them and considering the stats that are thrown around here, our teen pregnancy,
drug and crime problems would all but vanish. Hey maybe we could even get a few
more roads repaired? ;)

Mrs Indyguy



>
>
>
>
>
>

[Indyguy1]

Gini wrote:

>In article >, Indyguy1 says...
>>
>>Barb wrote:
>>
>>>I think it is so wrong for the state to make fathers repay for their non
>>>custodial children's medical bill and past AFDC.
>>
>>Why? If he had been paying the court ordered CS then the welfare wouldn't
>have
>>been given as a freebee, it would have been paid for by the CS. The NCP is
>one
>>of the children's parents, afterall.
>====
>I went back to read Barb's original post but it isn't on my reader so I don't
>know how much support was ordered.

It didn't say.

However, generally speaking, the amount
>of
>CS paid by an NCP to a state dependent CP/child is rarely enough to move a
>child
>out of poverty and off state aid.

Gini you're confusing the heck out of me!!!! I thought the general concensus
around here is that NCPs pay WAY more than what it actually costs to raise a
child, so much so they have money to support boyfriends, gambling habits, drug
and alcohol addictions, etc. So how can what you say be true?

Mrs Indyguy
>====
>====
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[teachrmama]

"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
> Teach wrote:
>
> <snip to>
>
>
>>>>> My views on this are tainted by the fact that I don't believe in
>>>>> public
>>>>> hand
>>>>> outs for anyone. At the VERY least these welfare receipiants (and yes
>>>>> the
>>>>> NCP
>>>>> are included as the other parent of the child) should be working for
>>>>> the
>>>>> states
>>>>> in some capcity, even if it is picking up trash on the highways nights
>>>>> and
>>>>> weekends, for ANYTHING they are given.
>>>>
>>>>And if they refuse to do so? Do you think they be jailed, as the NCP
>>>>can
>>>>for not paying CS?
>>>
>>> They won't work for the state supplied support then they don't get one
>>> red
>>> cent. If they don't get the state supplied money then they loose their
>>> kids for
>>> endangering them. Then after that they can either live in box or get a
>>> job.
>>
>>That sounds good to me! Now, do you get accused of wanting to create
>>state-run orphanages for expressing such views?
>
> Teach, you surprise me! Why would anyone say such a thing? We all know
> that the
> NCPs out there are just chomping at the bit to raise their children full
> time.
> There'd be no need for orphanages with all those dads out there that can
> raise
> the children on a small fraction of what the government currently extorts
> from
> them and considering the stats that are thrown around here, our teen
> pregnancy,
> drug and crime problems would all but vanish. Hey maybe we could even get
> a few
> more roads repaired? ;)

<chuckle> I've been accused of wanting to bring back public orphanages when
I comment that if a woman who has no way to support herself has a second
child (or more) that she can't support, the child should be taken from her
and adopted out. And I'm serious. Why should she be permitted to stake out
more and more spots at the public trough at taxpayers expense? She already
knows she can't take care of herself, let alone more and more children!

As for the statistics on single mother households, I'm sure they are true.
What I question is the idea that father headed households are better for the
children. I don't think there is any proof of that. My brother is a single
father, and an excellent one. But my brother-in-law, another single father,
is a drug abusing thief. He is on the verge of losing his parental rights
forever. The parenting skills of fathers run the gamut, just as the
parenting skills of mothers do. If default custody went to dads, we'd see
studies demonstrating poor behavior in other areas than the ones shown for
mother-headed households. If we ever achieve a balance of mother/father
custody, maybe we'll get a true picture.

I do have an idea about getting the roads fixed--we could send 3/4 of the
public assistance recipients out to fix the roads while the other 1/4
babysit their children, thus eliminating the need for child care moneys,
too! =c)

[teachrmama]

"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
> Gini wrote:
>
>>In article >, Indyguy1
>>says...
>>>
>>>Barb wrote:
>>>
>>>>I think it is so wrong for the state to make fathers repay for their non
>>>>custodial children's medical bill and past AFDC.
>>>
>>>Why? If he had been paying the court ordered CS then the welfare wouldn't
>>have
>>>been given as a freebee, it would have been paid for by the CS. The NCP
>>>is
>>one
>>>of the children's parents, afterall.
>>====
>>I went back to read Barb's original post but it isn't on my reader so I
>>don't
>>know how much support was ordered.
>
> It didn't say.
>
> However, generally speaking, the amount
>>of
>>CS paid by an NCP to a state dependent CP/child is rarely enough to move a
>>child
>>out of poverty and off state aid.
>
> Gini you're confusing the heck out of me!!!! I thought the general
> concensus
> around here is that NCPs pay WAY more than what it actually costs to raise
> a
> child, so much so they have money to support boyfriends, gambling habits,
> drug
> and alcohol addictions, etc. So how can what you say be true?

The way I see it, if both parents are living in poverty, then the amount of
CS paid from the father is not going to lift the child out of poverty.
However, if the father has a decent job, and is ordered to pay lifestyle
child support, he is probably paying much more than the amount needed to
supply the needs of the child. In our case, the mother of my husband's
daughter has never held a job, but has always clung stubbornly to her space
at the public trough. The child support taken from my husband's paycheck
has caused us financial strain, but we still do not live in poverty. His
daughter, however, still lives in poverty, despite the fact that the amount
of CS paid is equal to some people's salaries in that low-cost-of-living
area. The money is NOT spent only on the needs of the child it is intended
for, but on such things as alcohol, as well as on the other children in the
household. If this woman were ever forced to prove that she spent the money
for its intended purpose, she would be arrested in an instant. But, of
course, the state just winks and turns its collective head. As long as the
household is being taken care of with nongovernment funds, they really don't
care whether the CS money is spent properly. Now, Indy, if the CS can do
what it does in our case, don't you think that just a bit too much is being
paid, since the child's needs are being met on just a fraction of the CS
paid?

[Gini]

In article >, Indyguy1 says...
>
>Gini wrote:
>
>>In article >, Indyguy1 says...
>>>
>>>Barb wrote:
>>>
>>>>I think it is so wrong for the state to make fathers repay for their non
>>>>custodial children's medical bill and past AFDC.
>>>
>>>Why? If he had been paying the court ordered CS then the welfare wouldn't
>>have
>>>been given as a freebee, it would have been paid for by the CS. The NCP is
>>one
>>>of the children's parents, afterall.
>>====
>>I went back to read Barb's original post but it isn't on my reader so I don't
>>know how much support was ordered.
>
>It didn't say.
>
> However, generally speaking, the amount
>>of
>>CS paid by an NCP to a state dependent CP/child is rarely enough to move a
>>child
>>out of poverty and off state aid.
>
>Gini you're confusing the heck out of me!!!! I thought the general concensus
>around here is that NCPs pay WAY more than what it actually costs to raise a
>child, so much so they have money to support boyfriends, gambling habits, drug
>and alcohol addictions, etc. So how can what you say be true?
===
Generally speaking, women who are state dependent do not have high income ex
spouses. In other cases, such as TM's predicament, the CS becomes the only
source of non-state income but still isn't enough, in that capacity, to raise
the family out of poverty or even off welfare. Now, if "TM's" ex had earned
income of her own in addition to the support, the family might be raised from
poverty. Hence, TM's subsequent family is forced to pay unfairly high support
but the recipient family is still living in poverty.
===
>
>Mrs Indyguy
>>====
>>====

[Werebat]

Indyguy1 wrote:

> Bob wrote:
>
>
>>"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Mel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>And too bad...
>>>>
>>>>Phil #3 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>>Barb wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I recently heard from three families where the state of Indiana was
>>>>>>>reopening decades old child support cases, In each of these cases,
>>
>>the
>>
>>>>>>>child in question is now an adult, two of the children are now 26
>>
>>years
>>
>>>>>>>old.` And not only is the State sueing for back child support, they
>>
>>were
>>
>>>>>>>also sueing for repayment of funds which the state paid out for
>>
>>medicaid
>>
>>>>>>>and AFDC when the child was a minor.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I thought all this so unbelievable that just this afternoon I phoned
>>>>>>>our local Child Support office and I was assured such was happening.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>To make matters worse, the state presents these law suits against the
>>>>>>>fathers as if the ex wife has initiated them. And that is flatly not
>>>>>>>the case. The first these mothers had any clue that these suits had
>>>>>>>been filed was when they, out of the blue, got a check from the
>>
>>state.
>>
>>>>>>>Without a doubt, the back support these fathers could owe will amount
>>
>>to
>>
>>>>>>>thousands upon thousands of dollars. Considering the fact that good
>>>>>>>paying jobs are about as scarce as hen's teeth, can't you imagine
>>
>>the
>>
>>>>>>>stress this will cause fathers who are now well into their forties.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And considering the amount of domestic violence usually connected to
>>>>>>>divorce and chiid support, heaven help us all as the state quietly
>>
>>goes
>>
>>>>>>>about wrecking havoc upon these families.
>>>>>>>barb
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Barb, I'm having a difficult time understanding just what your beef
>>
>>is
>>
>>>>>>with the
>>>>>>state of Indiana, regarding its desire to collect on past bad debts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If you're ticked they waited so long, then I understand. However if
>>
>>you
>>
>>>>>>are
>>>>>>just angry that they are pursuing these bad debts, then I fail to
>>>>>>understand
>>>>>>your anger. As a tax payer, I too am ticked they waited decades to
>>>>>>collect, but
>>>>>>better late than never.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Mrs Indyguy
>>>>>
>>>>>Too bad they have no interest in the time many of these fathers
>>
>>undoubtedly
>>
>>>>>lost with their children due to the screwed up system that thinks only
>>
>>of
>>
>>>>>money.
>>>>>Phil #3
>>>>
>>>>the debts may be totally artificial in the first place. Too bad the
>>>>state can "legally" say "you owe" without being able to back up the
>>>>statement with anything more than "we say so".
>>>
>>>My comments were based on the assumption that the money is actually owed.
>>>
>>> Indyguy believes "you
>>>
>>>>owe us because we say you owe us" is a fully legitimate statement. I
>>>>wonder why she sees it differently when I say she owes ME just because I
>>>>say she owes me?
>>>
>>>Trying to muddy the waters won't change the fact that many tax payers
>>
>>don't
>>
>>>want to support any children other than their own. If I lived in Indiana
>>
>>I'd be
>>
>>>cheering on the state to get the money back from the parent. I guess you'd
>>
>>just
>>
>>>be satisfied with your tax dollars going to pay another parents
>>
>>obligation.
>>
>>>I have no problem helping someone elses children. I had them in my Girl
>>
>>Scout
>>
>>>troops, I was their room mother, I drove them to the mall, etc. But I have
>>
>>no
>>
>>>interest in paying for their medical care, food, clothing, etc. when they
>>
>>have
>>
>>>parents that should be doing so.
>>
>>I'm sure you know this - any public assistance money is only repayable by
>>the NCP. The CP who collects the money is presumed to not have the ability
>>to support her own children. So technically there is no "parents"
>>obligation. It is an NCP parent's obligation to support his children with
>>the assistance of the taxpayers for any amount over the CS guideline
>>calculation amount.
>
>
> Yes Bob, I do know this and I don't agree with it. HOWEVER I'd rather see one
> of the parents pay the tab than the tax payers that aren't related to the child
> at all.
>
> My views on this are tainted by the fact that I don't believe in public hand
> outs for anyone. At the VERY least these welfare receipiants (and yes the NCP
> are included as the other parent of the child) should be working for the states
> in some capcity, even if it is picking up trash on the highways nights and
> weekends, for ANYTHING they are given.

Much, MUCH will change when the quiet revolution comes and states begin
switching custody in welfare cases over to the parent who can actually
support the child.

This is the common sense solution, and it solves so many problems that
it would take a state agency to screw it up.

- Ron ^*^

[Werebat]

teachrmama wrote:

> "Indyguy1" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Teach wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>Bob wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>>Mel wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And too bad...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Phil #3 wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Barb wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I recently heard from three families where the state of Indiana
>>>>>>>>>>was
>>>>>>>>>>reopening decades old child support cases, In each of these
>>>>>>>>>>cases,
>>>>>
>>>>>the
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>child in question is now an adult, two of the children are now
>>>>>>>>>>26
>>>>>
>>>>>years
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>old.` And not only is the State sueing for back child support,
>>>>>>>>>>they
>>>>>
>>>>>were
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>also sueing for repayment of funds which the state paid out for
>>>>>
>>>>>medicaid
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>and AFDC when the child was a minor.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I thought all this so unbelievable that just this afternoon I
>>>>>>>>>>phoned
>>>>>>>>>>our local Child Support office and I was assured such was
>>>>>>>>>>happening.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>To make matters worse, the state presents these law suits against
>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>fathers as if the ex wife has initiated them. And that is flatly
>>>>>>>>>>not
>>>>>>>>>>the case. The first these mothers had any clue that these suits
>>>>>>>>>>had
>>>>>>>>>>been filed was when they, out of the blue, got a check from the
>>>>>
>>>>>state.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Without a doubt, the back support these fathers could owe will
>>>>>>>>>>amount
>>>>>
>>>>>to
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>thousands upon thousands of dollars. Considering the fact that
>>>>>>>>>>good
>>>>>>>>>>paying jobs are about as scarce as hen's teeth, can't you
>>>>>>>>>>imagine
>>>>>
>>>>>the
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>stress this will cause fathers who are now well into their
>>>>>>>>>>forties.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>And considering the amount of domestic violence usually connected
>>>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>>>divorce and chiid support, heaven help us all as the state
>>>>>>>>>>quietly
>>>>>
>>>>>goes
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>about wrecking havoc upon these families.
>>>>>>>>>>barb
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Barb, I'm having a difficult time understanding just what your
>>>>>>>>>beef
>>>>>
>>>>>is
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>with the
>>>>>>>>>state of Indiana, regarding its desire to collect on past bad
>>>>>>>>>debts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>If you're ticked they waited so long, then I understand. However
>>>>>>>>>if
>>>>>
>>>>>you
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>are
>>>>>>>>>just angry that they are pursuing these bad debts, then I fail to
>>>>>>>>>understand
>>>>>>>>>your anger. As a tax payer, I too am ticked they waited decades
>>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>>collect, but
>>>>>>>>>better late than never.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Mrs Indyguy
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Too bad they have no interest in the time many of these fathers
>>>>>
>>>>>undoubtedly
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>lost with their children due to the screwed up system that thinks
>>>>>>>>only
>>>>>
>>>>>of
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>money.
>>>>>>>>Phil #3
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>the debts may be totally artificial in the first place. Too bad the
>>>>>>>state can "legally" say "you owe" without being able to back up the
>>>>>>>statement with anything more than "we say so".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>My comments were based on the assumption that the money is actually
>>>>>>owed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indyguy believes "you
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>owe us because we say you owe us" is a fully legitimate statement. I
>>>>>>>wonder why she sees it differently when I say she owes ME just
>>>>>>>because
>>>>>>>I
>>>>>>>say she owes me?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Trying to muddy the waters won't change the fact that many tax payers
>>>>>
>>>>>don't
>>>>>
>>>>>>want to support any children other than their own. If I lived in
>>>>>>Indiana
>>>>>
>>>>>I'd be
>>>>>
>>>>>>cheering on the state to get the money back from the parent. I guess
>>>>>>you'd
>>>>>
>>>>>just
>>>>>
>>>>>>be satisfied with your tax dollars going to pay another parents
>>>>>
>>>>>obligation.
>>>>>
>>>>>>I have no problem helping someone elses children. I had them in my
>>>>>>Girl
>>>>>
>>>>>Scout
>>>>>
>>>>>>troops, I was their room mother, I drove them to the mall, etc. But I
>>>>>>have
>>>>>
>>>>>no
>>>>>
>>>>>>interest in paying for their medical care, food, clothing, etc. when
>>>>>>they
>>>>>
>>>>>have
>>>>>
>>>>>>parents that should be doing so.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm sure you know this - any public assistance money is only repayable
>>>>>by
>>>>>the NCP. The CP who collects the money is presumed to not have the
>>>>>ability
>>>>>to support her own children. So technically there is no "parents"
>>>>>obligation. It is an NCP parent's obligation to support his children
>>>>>with
>>>>>the assistance of the taxpayers for any amount over the CS guideline
>>>>>calculation amount.
>>>>
>>>>Yes Bob, I do know this and I don't agree with it. HOWEVER I'd rather
>>>>see
>>>>one
>>>>of the parents pay the tab than the tax payers that aren't related to
>>>>the
>>>>child
>>>>at all.
>>>>
>>>>My views on this are tainted by the fact that I don't believe in public
>>>>hand
>>>>outs for anyone. At the VERY least these welfare receipiants (and yes
>>>>the
>>>>NCP
>>>>are included as the other parent of the child) should be working for the
>>>>states
>>>>in some capcity, even if it is picking up trash on the highways nights
>>>>and
>>>>weekends, for ANYTHING they are given.
>>>
>>>And if they refuse to do so? Do you think they be jailed, as the NCP can
>>>for not paying CS?
>>
>>They won't work for the state supplied support then they don't get one red
>>cent. If they don't get the state supplied money then they loose their
>>kids for
>>endangering them. Then after that they can either live in box or get a
>>job.
>
>
> That sounds good to me! Now, do you get accused of wanting to create
> state-run orphanages for expressing such views?

Just give the kids to the parent who can actually support them.

It's just that easy!

- Ron ^*^

[teachrmama]

"Werebat" > wrote in message
news:zkZed.16203$0j.11827@lakeread07...
>
>
> teachrmama wrote:
>
>> "Indyguy1" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Teach wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>>Bob wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Mel wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>And too bad...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Phil #3 wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Barb wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I recently heard from three families where the state of Indiana
>>>>>>>>>>>was
>>>>>>>>>>>reopening decades old child support cases, In each of these
>>>>>>>>>>>cases,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>child in question is now an adult, two of the children are now 26
>>>>>>
>>>>>>years
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>old.` And not only is the State sueing for back child support,
>>>>>>>>>>>they
>>>>>>
>>>>>>were
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>also sueing for repayment of funds which the state paid out for
>>>>>>
>>>>>>medicaid
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>and AFDC when the child was a minor.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I thought all this so unbelievable that just this afternoon I
>>>>>>>>>>>phoned
>>>>>>>>>>>our local Child Support office and I was assured such was
>>>>>>>>>>>happening.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>To make matters worse, the state presents these law suits against
>>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>>fathers as if the ex wife has initiated them. And that is flatly
>>>>>>>>>>>not
>>>>>>>>>>>the case. The first these mothers had any clue that these suits
>>>>>>>>>>>had
>>>>>>>>>>>been filed was when they, out of the blue, got a check from the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>state.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Without a doubt, the back support these fathers could owe will
>>>>>>>>>>>amount
>>>>>>
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>thousands upon thousands of dollars. Considering the fact that
>>>>>>>>>>>good
>>>>>>>>>>>paying jobs are about as scarce as hen's teeth, can't you
>>>>>>>>>>>imagine
>>>>>>
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>stress this will cause fathers who are now well into their
>>>>>>>>>>>forties.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>And considering the amount of domestic violence usually connected
>>>>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>>>>divorce and chiid support, heaven help us all as the state
>>>>>>>>>>>quietly
>>>>>>
>>>>>>goes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>about wrecking havoc upon these families.
>>>>>>>>>>>barb
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Barb, I'm having a difficult time understanding just what your
>>>>>>>>>>beef
>>>>>>
>>>>>>is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>with the
>>>>>>>>>>state of Indiana, regarding its desire to collect on past bad
>>>>>>>>>>debts.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>If you're ticked they waited so long, then I understand. However
>>>>>>>>>>if
>>>>>>
>>>>>>you
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>are
>>>>>>>>>>just angry that they are pursuing these bad debts, then I fail to
>>>>>>>>>>understand
>>>>>>>>>>your anger. As a tax payer, I too am ticked they waited decades to
>>>>>>>>>>collect, but
>>>>>>>>>>better late than never.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Mrs Indyguy
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Too bad they have no interest in the time many of these fathers
>>>>>>
>>>>>>undoubtedly
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>lost with their children due to the screwed up system that thinks
>>>>>>>>>only
>>>>>>
>>>>>>of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>money.
>>>>>>>>>Phil #3
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>the debts may be totally artificial in the first place. Too bad the
>>>>>>>>state can "legally" say "you owe" without being able to back up the
>>>>>>>>statement with anything more than "we say so".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>My comments were based on the assumption that the money is actually
>>>>>>>owed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Indyguy believes "you
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>owe us because we say you owe us" is a fully legitimate statement.
>>>>>>>>I
>>>>>>>>wonder why she sees it differently when I say she owes ME just
>>>>>>>>because
>>>>>>>>I
>>>>>>>>say she owes me?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Trying to muddy the waters won't change the fact that many tax payers
>>>>>>
>>>>>>don't
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>want to support any children other than their own. If I lived in
>>>>>>>Indiana
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'd be
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>cheering on the state to get the money back from the parent. I guess
>>>>>>>you'd
>>>>>>
>>>>>>just
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>be satisfied with your tax dollars going to pay another parents
>>>>>>
>>>>>>obligation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I have no problem helping someone elses children. I had them in my
>>>>>>>Girl
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Scout
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>troops, I was their room mother, I drove them to the mall, etc. But I
>>>>>>>have
>>>>>>
>>>>>>no
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>interest in paying for their medical care, food, clothing, etc. when
>>>>>>>they
>>>>>>
>>>>>>have
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>parents that should be doing so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm sure you know this - any public assistance money is only repayable
>>>>>>by
>>>>>>the NCP. The CP who collects the money is presumed to not have the
>>>>>>ability
>>>>>>to support her own children. So technically there is no "parents"
>>>>>>obligation. It is an NCP parent's obligation to support his children
>>>>>>with
>>>>>>the assistance of the taxpayers for any amount over the CS guideline
>>>>>>calculation amount.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes Bob, I do know this and I don't agree with it. HOWEVER I'd rather
>>>>>see
>>>>>one
>>>>>of the parents pay the tab than the tax payers that aren't related to
>>>>>the
>>>>>child
>>>>>at all.
>>>>>
>>>>>My views on this are tainted by the fact that I don't believe in public
>>>>>hand
>>>>>outs for anyone. At the VERY least these welfare receipiants (and yes
>>>>>the
>>>>>NCP
>>>>>are included as the other parent of the child) should be working for
>>>>>the
>>>>>states
>>>>>in some capcity, even if it is picking up trash on the highways nights
>>>>>and
>>>>>weekends, for ANYTHING they are given.
>>>>
>>>>And if they refuse to do so? Do you think they be jailed, as the NCP
>>>>can
>>>>for not paying CS?
>>>
>>>They won't work for the state supplied support then they don't get one
>>>red
>>>cent. If they don't get the state supplied money then they loose their
>>>kids for
>>>endangering them. Then after that they can either live in box or get a
>>>job.
>>
>>
>> That sounds good to me! Now, do you get accused of wanting to create
>> state-run orphanages for expressing such views?
>
> Just give the kids to the parent who can actually support them.
>
> It's just that easy!

That would work fine, Ron, if the mom knew who the dad was, and if the dad
actually wanted the child. Which, unfortunately, isn't always the case.

[Phil #3]

"Werebat" > wrote in message
news:6jZed.16202$0j.16176@lakeread07...
[snip]

> Much, MUCH will change when the quiet revolution comes and states begin
> switching custody in welfare cases over to the parent who can actually
> support the child.
>
> This is the common sense solution, and it solves so many problems that it
> would take a state agency to screw it up.
>
> - Ron ^*^

Do you really think politicians, who are greedy, self-serving a**holes (and
many feminists, but I repeat myself), are going to even consider such a
change that would have a profound and distasteful result for so many women?
Do you feel any states are willing to cut millions of dollars in funding
from the feddle gummit just to do something that makes sense?
Phil #3

[Indyguy1]

Teach wrote:

<snip to>

>Now, Indy, if the CS can do
>what it does in our case, don't you think that just a bit too much is being
>paid, since the child's needs are being met on just a fraction of the CS
>paid?

First off let me say that I don't believe CS should even be an option for
unmarried people. You weren't married, didn't bother to make it legal, then
figure it out on your own.

Secondly I believe CPs need to be accountable for the CS they recieve.

So do I think your DH pays too much?

Yes and no. I actually don't feel he should have to pay anything. But if he had
been married to the mother of his child then she'd have to show how she spends
the money on the child. The child would then have a lifestyle that would be
more reflective if the parents had stayed married.

Mrs Indyguy

[Indyguy1]

Teach wrote:

<snip to>

>What I question is the idea that father headed households are better for the
>children.

I agree. But I'm really surprised you have been jumped on for saying this.

<snip to>

>I do have an idea about getting the roads fixed--we could send 3/4 of the
>public assistance recipients out to fix the roads while the other 1/4
>babysit their children, thus eliminating the need for child care moneys,
>too! =c)

You read my miond. LOL

Mrs Indyguy

[Werebat]

Phil #3 wrote:

> "Werebat" > wrote in message
> news:6jZed.16202$0j.16176@lakeread07...
> [snip]
>
>
>>Much, MUCH will change when the quiet revolution comes and states begin
>>switching custody in welfare cases over to the parent who can actually
>>support the child.
>>
>>This is the common sense solution, and it solves so many problems that it
>>would take a state agency to screw it up.
>>
>> - Ron ^*^
>
>
> Do you really think politicians, who are greedy, self-serving a**holes (and
> many feminists, but I repeat myself), are going to even consider such a
> change that would have a profound and distasteful result for so many women?
> Do you feel any states are willing to cut millions of dollars in funding
> from the feddle gummit just to do something that makes sense?

Read what I wrote again. :^)

But bear in mind, even Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall fell to pieces
eventually.

Sooner or later, corruption will out.

- Ron ^*^

[Werebat]

teachrmama wrote:

> "Werebat" > wrote in message
> news:zkZed.16203$0j.11827@lakeread07...

>>Just give the kids to the parent who can actually support them.
>>
>>It's just that easy!
>
>
> That would work fine, Ron, if the mom knew who the dad was, and if the dad
> actually wanted the child. Which, unfortunately, isn't always the case.

So it shouldn't be done in the instances where it IS the case?

Now that just makes no sense. Sorta like saying "medication X doesn't
cure all types of cancer, so we won't use it on the ones that it WILL cure."

- Ron ^*^

[teachrmama]

"Werebat" > wrote in message
news:jlEfd.16870$0j.14526@lakeread07...
>
>
> teachrmama wrote:
>
>> "Werebat" > wrote in message
>> news:zkZed.16203$0j.11827@lakeread07...
>
>>>Just give the kids to the parent who can actually support them.
>>>
>>>It's just that easy!
>>
>>
>> That would work fine, Ron, if the mom knew who the dad was, and if the
>> dad actually wanted the child. Which, unfortunately, isn't always the
>> case.
>
> So it shouldn't be done in the instances where it IS the case?
>
> Now that just makes no sense. Sorta like saying "medication X doesn't
> cure all types of cancer, so we won't use it on the ones that it WILL
> cure."

Geesh, Ron! I said it would work fine in the cases where the dad was known.
But it doesn't solve the problem of all the kids born to Maury Povich Show
wannabes who have no clue who fathered their 8th child--or any of the
previous ones. We need a different solution for those ones.

[Werebat]

teachrmama wrote:

> "Werebat" > wrote in message
> news:jlEfd.16870$0j.14526@lakeread07...
>
>>
>>teachrmama wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Werebat" > wrote in message
>>>news:zkZed.16203$0j.11827@lakeread07...
>>
>>>>Just give the kids to the parent who can actually support them.
>>>>
>>>>It's just that easy!
>>>
>>>
>>>That would work fine, Ron, if the mom knew who the dad was, and if the
>>>dad actually wanted the child. Which, unfortunately, isn't always the
>>>case.
>>
>>So it shouldn't be done in the instances where it IS the case?
>>
>>Now that just makes no sense. Sorta like saying "medication X doesn't
>>cure all types of cancer, so we won't use it on the ones that it WILL
>>cure."
>
>
> Geesh, Ron! I said it would work fine in the cases where the dad was known.
> But it doesn't solve the problem of all the kids born to Maury Povich Show
> wannabes who have no clue who fathered their 8th child--or any of the
> previous ones. We need a different solution for those ones.

True. But I personally care less about those ones, since they hit me
very minimally in the paycheck compared to the type I was talking about,
or at least one of them.

I have my son 50% of the time, more if you count the time my parents
watch him, and I pay 90% of the standard CS because my ex got on welfare
and CSE played their happy mathemagical number-gnome games. It's pure,
unadulterated BS and everyone knows it, including both lawyers who were
involved in the courtroom that day. One of them actually laughed,
admitted that it didn't make any sense, and said, "But that's the way it
is!"

I understand the state wanting to get out from under the burden my ex
represents, but I have a better all-around solution for them, myself,
AND my son (and ultimately my ex as well). And it doesn't leave me
singing "Brazil!"

- Ron ^*^

[Moon Shyne]

"Werebat" > wrote in message
news:ynUfd.17364$0j.3335@lakeread07...
>
>
> teachrmama wrote:
>
> > "Werebat" > wrote in message
> > news:jlEfd.16870$0j.14526@lakeread07...
> >
> >>
> >>teachrmama wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Werebat" > wrote in message
> >>>news:zkZed.16203$0j.11827@lakeread07...
> >>
> >>>>Just give the kids to the parent who can actually support them.
> >>>>
> >>>>It's just that easy!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>That would work fine, Ron, if the mom knew who the dad was, and if the
> >>>dad actually wanted the child. Which, unfortunately, isn't always the
> >>>case.
> >>
> >>So it shouldn't be done in the instances where it IS the case?
> >>
> >>Now that just makes no sense. Sorta like saying "medication X doesn't
> >>cure all types of cancer, so we won't use it on the ones that it WILL
> >>cure."
> >
> >
> > Geesh, Ron! I said it would work fine in the cases where the dad was known.
> > But it doesn't solve the problem of all the kids born to Maury Povich Show
> > wannabes who have no clue who fathered their 8th child--or any of the
> > previous ones. We need a different solution for those ones.
>
> True. But I personally care less about those ones, since they hit me
> very minimally in the paycheck compared to the type I was talking about,
> or at least one of them.
>
> I have my son 50% of the time, more if you count the time my parents
> watch him, and I pay 90% of the standard CS because my ex got on welfare
> and CSE played their happy mathemagical number-gnome games. It's pure,
> unadulterated BS and everyone knows it, including both lawyers who were
> involved in the courtroom that day. One of them actually laughed,
> admitted that it didn't make any sense, and said, "But that's the way it
> is!"
>
> I understand the state wanting to get out from under the burden my ex
> represents, but I have a better all-around solution for them, myself,
> AND my son (and ultimately my ex as well). And it doesn't leave me
> singing "Brazil!"

Then why aren't you filing for primary placement of your son?

>
> - Ron ^*^
>

[Werebat]

Moon Shyne wrote:

> "Werebat" > wrote in message
> news:ynUfd.17364$0j.3335@lakeread07...
>
>>
>>teachrmama wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Werebat" > wrote in message
>>>news:jlEfd.16870$0j.14526@lakeread07...
>>>
>>>
>>>>teachrmama wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Werebat" > wrote in message
>>>>>news:zkZed.16203$0j.11827@lakeread07...
>>>>
>>>>>>Just give the kids to the parent who can actually support them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's just that easy!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>That would work fine, Ron, if the mom knew who the dad was, and if the
>>>>>dad actually wanted the child. Which, unfortunately, isn't always the
>>>>>case.
>>>>
>>>>So it shouldn't be done in the instances where it IS the case?
>>>>
>>>>Now that just makes no sense. Sorta like saying "medication X doesn't
>>>>cure all types of cancer, so we won't use it on the ones that it WILL
>>>>cure."
>>>
>>>
>>>Geesh, Ron! I said it would work fine in the cases where the dad was known.
>>>But it doesn't solve the problem of all the kids born to Maury Povich Show
>>>wannabes who have no clue who fathered their 8th child--or any of the
>>>previous ones. We need a different solution for those ones.
>>
>>True. But I personally care less about those ones, since they hit me
>>very minimally in the paycheck compared to the type I was talking about,
>>or at least one of them.
>>
>>I have my son 50% of the time, more if you count the time my parents
>>watch him, and I pay 90% of the standard CS because my ex got on welfare
>>and CSE played their happy mathemagical number-gnome games. It's pure,
>>unadulterated BS and everyone knows it, including both lawyers who were
>>involved in the courtroom that day. One of them actually laughed,
>>admitted that it didn't make any sense, and said, "But that's the way it
>>is!"
>>
>>I understand the state wanting to get out from under the burden my ex
>>represents, but I have a better all-around solution for them, myself,
>>AND my son (and ultimately my ex as well). And it doesn't leave me
>>singing "Brazil!"
>
>
> Then why aren't you filing for primary placement of your son?

Because I have been advised by three lawyers that it would be a waste of
time and money (Rhode Island is second only to Massachusetts in failure
to place children with their fathers).

And also because I don't think that would be what's best for him. I
really do think joint custody is the best thing for *him*, at least at
this time (though there are moments when I wonder -- when he comes home
smelling like cat pee, for example).

However the way things are set up, all my ex has to do is get on Welfare
again and they will gouge me for as much CS as they can, freeing her to
get off Welfare and collect the money for herself. Having this sword of
Damocles hanging over my head is very uncomfortable and very unfair.
CSE calculates awards with some absurd formula that has me paying 90% of
the standard amount to a woman who has our son 40% of the time. As it
is after seeing what the courts would order, we agreed to a lesser sum
with the understanding that I would be paying my ex the difference
"under the table" as money "to pay off school loans", which she has
never and will never actually use the money to pay off. I really had no
choice but to agree to this since the alternative was to have the courts
ORDER me to pay the money for the next 16 years.

Now I'm already gearing up for what will happen in another year when the
loans are "paid off". She'll say she can't get by without the money,
make up some excuse for why I should pay her more, and if I refuse it's
back to Welfare en route to court to get the official award raised even
higher.

Giving preferential custody to the parent who doesn't require assistance
would end this nonsense. And I'd be happy to take full custody of my
son, if an attempt to do so were not "a waste of time".

- Ron ^*^

[Mel Gamble]

And re-inforce the notion...

teachrmama wrote:
>
> "Indyguy1" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Teach wrote:
> >
> > <snip to>
> >
> >
> >>>>> My views on this are tainted by the fact that I don't believe in
> >>>>> public
> >>>>> hand
> >>>>> outs for anyone. At the VERY least these welfare receipiants (and yes
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> NCP
> >>>>> are included as the other parent of the child) should be working for
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> states
> >>>>> in some capcity, even if it is picking up trash on the highways nights
> >>>>> and
> >>>>> weekends, for ANYTHING they are given.
> >>>>
> >>>>And if they refuse to do so? Do you think they be jailed, as the NCP
> >>>>can
> >>>>for not paying CS?
> >>>
> >>> They won't work for the state supplied support then they don't get one
> >>> red
> >>> cent. If they don't get the state supplied money then they loose their
> >>> kids for
> >>> endangering them. Then after that they can either live in box or get a
> >>> job.
> >>
> >>That sounds good to me! Now, do you get accused of wanting to create
> >>state-run orphanages for expressing such views?
> >
> > Teach, you surprise me! Why would anyone say such a thing? We all know
> > that the
> > NCPs out there are just chomping at the bit to raise their children full
> > time.
> > There'd be no need for orphanages with all those dads out there that can
> > raise
> > the children on a small fraction of what the government currently extorts
> > from
> > them and considering the stats that are thrown around here, our teen
> > pregnancy,
> > drug and crime problems would all but vanish. Hey maybe we could even get
> > a few
> > more roads repaired? ;)
>
> <chuckle> I've been accused of wanting to bring back public orphanages when
> I comment that if a woman who has no way to support herself has a second
> child (or more) that she can't support, the child should be taken from her
> and adopted out. And I'm serious. Why should she be permitted to stake out
> more and more spots at the public trough at taxpayers expense? She already
> knows she can't take care of herself, let alone more and more children!
>
> As for the statistics on single mother households, I'm sure they are true.
> What I question is the idea that father headed households are better for the
> children. I don't think there is any proof of that. My brother is a single
> father, and an excellent one. But my brother-in-law, another single father,
> is a drug abusing thief. He is on the verge of losing his parental rights
> forever. The parenting skills of fathers run the gamut, just as the
> parenting skills of mothers do. If default custody went to dads, we'd see
> studies demonstrating poor behavior in other areas than the ones shown for
> mother-headed households. If we ever achieve a balance of mother/father
> custody, maybe we'll get a true picture.
>
> I do have an idea about getting the roads fixed--we could send 3/4 of the
> public assistance recipients out to fix the roads while the other 1/4
> babysit their children, thus eliminating the need for child care moneys,
> too! =c)

....that women are paid less than men for the same work? 'cause what
welfare pays doesn't add up to full time prevailing wage for a
construction worker... : )

Mel Gamble - who's birthday was today and who's soccer-playing daughter
is being spoken of in certain circles as material for a select team :)
Not even ACS can bring me down tonight!

[Indyguy1]

Mel wrote:

<snip the regular stuff to get to the good stuff>

>Mel Gamble - who's birthday was today

Happy Birthday, Mel! Was yours the 28th or today the 29th? Your post was dated
the the 29th but you used *was* today making it look like it was the 28th.
Mine's today the 29th.

and who's soccer-playing daughter
>is being spoken of in certain circles as material for a select team :)
>Not even ACS can bring me down tonight!

Awesome! You must be popping your buttons with pride.:) How old is she?

Just make sure she protects those knees. My youngest had 90% of her meniscus,
from one knee, removed earlier this year because of a soccer injury, and will
need a transplant in another year or so.

Mrs Indyguy

[barb 702]