Bucks County Fights For Back Child Support
 

And from Pennsylvania, where even anonymous sperm doners get hit with
child support:

http://kyw.com/Local%20News/local_story_206103348.html

Jul 25, 2005 8:51 am US/Eastern
DOYLESTOWN, PA (AP) Officials in Bucks County are intensifying efforts
to collect back child support payments.

The county has issued about 16-hundred warrants for parents who failed
to show up for meetings or court hearings. Collectively, they owe an
estimated 15 (m) million dollars in child support.

The county's domestic relations office collected 78 (m) million
dollars last year in support payments for more than 38-thousand
children, but officials say much more was owed.

Since April, two county deputies have been assigned to tracking down
offending parents. The county has cleared about 230 warrants in the
past three months, up nearly 60 percent over the same period last year.

Once again, a supposedly-neutral reporter uses the term "parents" in
regard to those who have to pay child support. I'll bet there are very few,
if any, mothers among this group of "parents." In any other circumstances
where there was such a marked discrepancy between the two sexes, there would
be some mention of it. In this case, there's none.

The use of the term "parents" is one way that CS bureaucrats avoid
having to answer the question of why such Draconian measures are being used
in the enforcement of a payment made almost exclusively by men to women. In
my view, one of the first steps to getting reform of this whole rotten and
corrupt system is to expose it for what it is. The use of the term "parent"
instead of "father" is one of the most effective ways of preventing this
exposure.

Find me a woman who is paying CS to a man, and I'm fairly sure I can get
her into a Ripley's believe-it-or-not exhibition -- along with the
India-rubber man and the bearded lady. My usual 10 percent commission will,
of course, apply to any fees for the woman in question.





wrote in message
oups.com...
And from Pennsylvania, where even anonymous sperm doners get hit with
child support:

http://kyw.com/Local%20News/local_story_206103348.html

Jul 25, 2005 8:51 am US/Eastern
DOYLESTOWN, PA (AP) Officials in Bucks County are intensifying efforts
to collect back child support payments.

The county has issued about 16-hundred warrants for parents who failed
to show up for meetings or court hearings. Collectively, they owe an
estimated 15 (m) million dollars in child support.

The county's domestic relations office collected 78 (m) million
dollars last year in support payments for more than 38-thousand
children, but officials say much more was owed.

Since April, two county deputies have been assigned to tracking down
offending parents. The county has cleared about 230 warrants in the
past three months, up nearly 60 percent over the same period last year.

My ex-wife is *supposed* to be paying child support, but hasn't for the
last two and a half years. My sons, 7 and 5, are in my sole legal and
physical custody. At least they live comfortably and don't need to
depend upon payments from their deadbeat mom.

(So there's at least one example.)

wrote:

My ex-wife is *supposed* to be paying child support, but hasn't for the
last two and a half years. My sons, 7 and 5, are in my sole legal and
physical custody. At least they live comfortably and don't need to
depend upon payments from their deadbeat mom.

(So there's at least one example.)

Nope -- he asked for a woman who was actually PAYING the CS, not one who
was just NEGLECTING to pay it while the authorities turn a blind eye for
"some reason".

- Ron ^*^

Well, depending upon when it was considered, it *was* true. She had
been paying her CS obligation up until the start of '03, but stopped it
cold.

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
Once again, a supposedly-neutral reporter uses the term "parents" in
regard to those who have to pay child support. I'll bet there are very
few,
if any, mothers among this group of "parents." In any other circumstances
where there was such a marked discrepancy between the two sexes, there
would
be some mention of it. In this case, there's none.

The use of the term "parents" is one way that CS bureaucrats avoid
having to answer the question of why such Draconian measures are being
used
in the enforcement of a payment made almost exclusively by men to women.
In
my view, one of the first steps to getting reform of this whole rotten and
corrupt system is to expose it for what it is. The use of the term
"parent"
instead of "father" is one of the most effective ways of preventing this
exposure.

As usual when these types of stories are covered in the media they peak my
curiosity as to why the bureaucrats are crowing about what they are doing.
I always go look at the state box score on the federal OCSE web site to
determine if they are covering up something with a preemptive press release
that delivers "good news."

Sure enough, PA has some dirty laundry. The '04 caseload was down 4.0%,
collections were up 1.1%, and full time employment in CSE was up 7.1%. Cost
of running the state CSE was down 1.8% to $202.1 million.

So the questions the press should ask a

1. If the caseload has declined 4.0%, why is CSE employment up 7.1%?
2. If employment is up 7.1%, why are collections only up 1.1%?
3. Why does it take more employees to collect essentially the same amount
of CS money?
4. Why are collections per employee declining?
5. How much of the $15 million is welfare reimbursement money?
6. If Buck County were to collect all of the $15 million they claim is due,
how much will it cost to reach that goal?

wrote in message
ups.com...
Well, depending upon when it was considered, it *was* true. She had
been paying her CS obligation up until the start of '03, but stopped it
cold.


My husband's ex-wife pays CS. We give it back to her, but she does pay it.
We don't have to give it back legally, but we do. She wasn't ordered to pay
it when the divorce was finalized because she didn't work while they were
married. It wasn't until the spring of 2004 when she was ordered to pay
child support. It isn't much due to her income level, but it is only $10
less than my ex-husband was supposed to pay and never did.

Thanks,
Tracy
~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/