Bismarck Tribune - North Dakota News - Bad way to collect support debt

Bad way to collect support debt

Jul 14, 2008 - 04:06:12 CDT

Divorce is a terrible thing that often isn't easy on the wife or husband - but is always difficult for children. Any man or woman who has been through a divorce, no matter how amicable, has witnessed the impact on children. Several things can lessen the pain, with love demonstrated through child support being a primary one.

There are obviously reasons why some parents fail to pay child support, or fall behind in court-ordered payments. Some real ones that come to mind are a loss of job or health. Many reasons, however, are only excuses, such as throwing money after vices or undertaking foolish propositions.

The majority of North Dakotans don't have a problem supporting their children - in or out of marriage. But some need to remember that their children should come first. Making babies comes with great responsibility.

But because some live outside the law, the Department of Human Services employs methods of collection of that support. The most effective is through income withholding from the non-custodial parent. Court actions, such as liens and forced property sales, can occur, and federal and state income tax refunds, lottery winnings and inheritances can be intercepted. Federal criminal prosecution also can occur and a delinquent parent can be found in contempt of court and given jail time or an order to complete work activities.

But one child support enforcement program that seems to cross a line is license suspension.

It was recently reported that more than 1,000 North Dakotans have had their driver's licenses suspended after failing to make child support payments. Another 688 people are reportedly subject to losing their licenses if they don't comply with payment plans.

The suspension laws not only take away the privilege of driving, but also can revoke hunting, professional and occupational licenses, as well as business permits and vehicle registrations for cars, trucks, boats and airplanes (usually for those in serious arrears).

That seems foolish for a couple of reasons. First, there are plentiful methods of collection without unleashing the license police. Second, a non-custodial parent might need a driver's license, or car registration, or professional or occupational license, or business permit to make money so they can pay child support.

Taking away such licenses seems more like punishment than a deterrent or collection method. What message does this send?

Still, parents are responsible for supporting their children. None of the collection methods would be necessary if delinquent parents viewed support as an investment in their child's future, rather than a court-mandated payment.

News > Opinion

Printer friendly version Bad way to collect support debt

Comments

kd wrote on Jul 24, 2008 9:59 AM:

" Mom-of-teens, he was not properly diagnosed until he entered therapy. Believe me, I went through all kinds of hell trying to get someone to listen to me about the troubles he was having and was brushed off by doctors, therapists, family and schools...he was pretty much considered just a bad seed (just like his dad) I cannot apply for disability for him until he is back in my custody. In the interim, I have asked my case worker repeatedly why they cannot push for disability for him, as it would help with the expense of his therapy. As it is, the program he is in is not considered foster care and therefore should not even be subject to child support payments...it is covered by medicaid which he already had in place. "

mom-of-teens wrote on Jul 23, 2008 8:50 PM:

" kd, Why if your son has autism does he not qualify for disability benefits? Death benefits and disability benefits are two different things. I would check into that. "

kd wrote on Jul 23, 2008 4:36 PM:

" My husband committed suicide 5 yrs ago.He was in and out of jail and did not pay enough into social security for my children to receive death benefits. My son, has mild autism and emotional problems and was placed into a therapeutic program. I am so thankful for this, I did as the court demanded and reported to CSE within 5 days and waited for five months to find out how much child support I would be required to pay. I live in a small town and the job I have only allows for approx. 28 hrs. per week, good luck finding fulltime 40 hr a week jobs here--a second job would only be found in the local bar, out of the question. When CSE finally got all their figuring done, they calculated my responsibility by adding over $4000 to my current income because, even though its not available to me, they feel I am perfectly capable of working a 40 hr week at minimum wage. When I questioned this I was told, rudely I might add, that compared with what had been spent on my son their figures were very small indeed. I said o.k., I am grateful, signed the papers and prepared to adjust accordingly. Two weeks later I received papers stating my wages were to be garnished and they would be taking my income tax--because I was 5 months in arrears. The five months it took them to get around to my case. Anyway, like I said I am so grateful for the help my son is receiving, but what about my other children? My rent is the same, my gas is the same, infact all my bills are the same--the only change is that my son is not in my household. I agree with those of you who would say I made a bad choice in my husband, who never worked so my children would have help from ss death benefits, but what sense does this make at all? Why should they continue to be punished for his and my bad choices? We scrape by, my rent is always late and I have started having to choose between gas or groceries most weeks, due to the automatic garnishment of my wages. We don't go anywhere other than to visit my son every two weeks, which is thankfully covered by mileage provided by the facility in which he is placed. I receive no assistance except medicaid for my children, we don't qualify for food stamps because, haha, I make too much money. So where is the fairness here? I work, I take care of my kids, I pay taxes, I pay child support. "

Heavy Arrears wrote on Jul 23, 2008 9:34 AM:

" TO Make a Change wrote on Jul 18, 2008 3:12 PM: You read my mind! Your entire blog is fantastic! My husband's ex DOES sit on her butt and lives off of the kids child support! Like I stated, she will be getting the equivalent of $13/hr-40 hours a week that my husband pays the taxes on! We do well financially NOW because we work hard to do so. My husband has NEVER been in arrears since the day I met him. Even when he was laid off a 7 years ago, the would walk into CS and pay the difference between what was paid by his unemployment and what was owed for the month. She should consider herself VERY lucky! Only 3yrs and 10 months left of this insanity! My husband has no problem supporting his children...but...the money is NOT being used in that way. "

Heavy Arrears wrote on Jul 23, 2008 8:22 AM:

" I could go on and on about the child support system, not just in this state but throughout the US. Here's a kicker for you...my ex was in the military and I STILL could not get my child support. Now that should have been an easy for for CSEU..he was a FEDERAL employee! Again...I feel as though I have fallen through the cracks. My case worker has changed so many times over the years. Each time I feel we are making progress, my worker changes and I have to start all over again. I call and as soon as they hear my name I get a big *sigh*. Very unprofessional. Now my case has moved to Grand Forks, which is even worse! I have become very friendly with my case workers voice mail. I am not here to slander the child support system. I am just making valid points. I know the workers job isnt easy, I certainly would not want it. "

Another mom wrote on Jul 22, 2008 10:00 AM:

" To Heavy arrears, I agree with you. In cases like that, there should be an investigation and charges of theft and neglect, in my opinion. THIS is what needs to change; not the collecting of child support itself. If my ex's wages weren't garnished I wouldn't get child support for the kids any other way! He pays $343 per month for TWO kids; not $1300, and still he complains. I shell out WAY more than $343 per month for the kids ABSOLUTELY! I don't think that all custodial parents should be lumped into the same category anymore than noncustodial parents should be. Mine just happens to be a deadbeat who wouldn't pay by any other means. "

Heavy Arrears wrote on Jul 22, 2008 7:57 AM:

" My husband and I face child support on both sides. I can't seem to get mine & my husband just keeps getting robbed. We have been together for 7 yrs. My husband has 2 children from a previous marriage. I have seen his child support go up by $1300 in 7 years. I agree that the amount he was paying when I first met him was too low. But, COME ON! His kids still call needing this that and the other thing. Financial responsibility should be 50/50 between custodial/non-custodial, right? I KNOW what it costs to raise 2 children & by what my husband pays, he is supporting 100%. HOWEVER, the child support is not being used to "support the children". She is constantly taking trips and what not, but the kids don't have the clothes they need or school supplies. Shouldn't we be able to have this investigated? He is due for another review in 09/09 and we know there will be ANOTHER increase, the last thank goodness. With that increase, she will be getting the same as a person working full time making $13.00 would make! WITHOUT TAXES! She works only part time. Why not when you are getting that much in child support! Again...the system is a MESS! "

Another mom wrote on Jul 22, 2008 7:44 AM:

" Matt, the law is put in place for those of us whose exes DON'T pay by any other means! If the wages of some people weren't garnished, they would NEVER pay their child support! The law wouldn't have had to go to such extreme measures in the first place if EVERYONE would help support their kids. Yes, the system needs changes, but that doesn't mean that it needs to be done away with entirely. You call it legalized extortion; I call it legalized accountability! "

Matt wrote on Jul 21, 2008 10:44 PM:

" When you strip away everything else from this issue and get down to the core of the matter, forced child support is legalized extortion. Using the force of law to extort money by means of threats of one kind or another doesn't lessen it either. "

Another mom wrote on Jul 21, 2008 10:09 PM:

" There shouldn't be any child support until the noncustodial parent can dictate where the money is spent? HHHMMM, Maybe custodial parents should be able to dictate how noncustodial parents spend their money in order to ensure that the child support payments get made. Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?? I sent my ex a statement as a COURTESY every month for almost a year to let him know how HIS precious money was being spent; eg. school lunch accounts; haircuts; new glasses for my daughter; kids club, etc; and he still whined about having to pay support even THOUGH he could PLAINLY SEE where the money was going. Some people just aren't happy no matter what!! I decided to stop as it was a waste of my time and effort. "

Another mom wrote on Jul 21, 2008 5:53 PM:

" Snoller, so basically if you don't like where the support is going, then you just shouldn't have to pay it at all? That's ridiculous. If all the CUSTODIAL parents felt like that, then the kids would REALLY be in trouble! Sorry to break this to you, but you do not get to dictate or decide where the money goes; if you want an accounting of the money, then ask for one. I used to give my ex a statement every month as a COURTESY; he didn't appreciate it, and still griped about having to pay child support at ALL, so I quit doing it. It was a waste of my time and effort. Maybe I should request an accounting of where all of my EX'S money goes, to explain to me why he hasn't been able to pay child support in almost a month. Maybe all the deadbeat parents who are behind and those who don't pay at all should have to account for all of THEIR spending too?? "

BJB wrote on Jul 21, 2008 4:08 PM:

" To Snoller:

You said, "the child is always second in line" wait just a minute buddy. Please don't speak for everyone. I'm sorry if this is your situation, but as a mom who receives child support I can tell you my children have always and will always come first. And I do favor some type of receipt system to show where the support money goes. "

Another mom wrote on Jul 21, 2008 3:08 PM:

" Heavy arrears, VERY good points! This is exactly the reason why child support issues and custody issues need to stay seperate and not be lumped into one initiative. There will be those who will use shared custody as an excuse not to pay child support. I agree that the child support system needs to be overhauled as well. But not to benefit deadbeats; to benefit those who are actually paying on time; those who are having a hard time collecting from their deadbeat exes; and those who TRUELY cannot afford to pay; and aren't just playing the "broke, but lazy" card. "

snoller wrote on Jul 21, 2008 2:44 PM:

" I can understand all the issues involved. But, did you know when you have paid child support, the mother can spend it however she sees fit. If it's for herself to take care of, so be it. The child is always second in line for the support. Until it's resolved how the money is spent, there shouldn't be any child support at all. "

mandanctzn wrote on Jul 21, 2008 2:02 PM:

" To: Soldier; If you are referring to the North Dakota Shared Parenting Initiative . You can find it at the following website, www.ndspi.org. "

Soldier wrote on Jul 21, 2008 12:31 PM:

" Does anybody know the status of the shared parenting initiative or where I can find more information on it? "

Heavy Arrears wrote on Jul 21, 2008 12:23 PM:

" I do not think that the license suspension is crossing a line at all. My ex is currently more than $15,000 in arrears and my son is only 9! Now, if he had taken the child support serious in the beginning, he would not be facing this license suspension. Yes, I said facing! This has yet to happen. I do understand that he needs this license to get to or find work. Is it ever taken into consideration that the custodial parent may also need that child support to pay day care so they can go to work as well? Or pay utilities? In some cases, the difference between making it and not making it is the child support. A license is a privledge. Supporting your child is a responsibility. If you are not a responsible individual, why should you be allowed privledges? As for the intercepts...HA! I do not know if I have just fallen through the cracks or what...but the last time I received a tax intercept was in 2001! For the past 2 years my ex has claimed my son ILLEGALLY on his taxes. You know he got a stimulus payment! I haven't seen a penny of that. I do not fight the money anymore, I fight the principle. I tell them to just put him in jail. They then say "If he is in jail he will not be able to work to pay his support". SO WHAT! He isn't paying it anway! This seems to be a no win situation for me. Personally, I think the child support system is a MESS! Plain and simple!!!! "

Mike R wrote on Jul 20, 2008 11:07 PM:

" Another mom: Counseling before the marraige wouldn't have mattered for us. We were together for 18 years. Everyone who knew us was jealous of the kind of relationship we had. We did it for the right reasons. I am not sure what changed. I don't think she knows either. All I know is that right from the start of trouble, every agency in the county, state, and private sector was focused on how we were going to get through the divorce. No one, other than myself, was focused in any way on how to get through without a divorce. No thought to the marraige vows. No though to the kids involved. Divorce is so common in this day and age, it is just assumed that if there are any problems what-so-ever that it is going to be a divorce. "

Mike R wrote on Jul 20, 2008 11:03 PM:

" SE Forty: Yeah go ahead and make fun of someone else's situation. I could make a million comments about what I know of you, but then that wouldn't be funny now would it? "

Another mom wrote on Jul 20, 2008 9:56 PM:

" To double standard, my ex is thousands of dollars in arrears and job hops all the time, and he isn't in jail either. I don't think that can exactly be called a double standard. There are men out there who pull the same cr@p and get away with it. Enforcement obviously isn't the greatest for either gender. "

Another mom wrote on Jul 20, 2008 9:34 PM:

" SE forty, sounds to me like you aren't real familiar with either one of our situations. My ex didn't dump me, I dumped him due to his cheating and drug using. I don't know Mike's situation that well, and I don't make assumptions. "

double standard wrote on Jul 20, 2008 4:51 PM:

" There is a dbl standard. I am a woman who is familiar with a situation where the father became the custodial parent of his 3 children. His exwife was ordered to pay nominal child support. She did not pay . They started trying to garnish . She jumped from job to job to avoid the issue. Even after 7 years and over 10000 dollars being owed she did not lose her license. Im sure it works both ways but if the roles were reversed he probably would have been sitting in jail. "

SE Forty wrote on Jul 20, 2008 2:28 PM:

" Sounds like Mike R. and anothermom got dumped by their exes. Maybe you two should get together. Lets us know how it goes. "

Another mom wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:31 AM:

" Mike R, I agree with you. It is far too easy to get divorced. It is also far too easy to get married in the first place. I think there should be more programs that intervene in troubled marriages before divorce hits, but I also think there should be something more offered BEFORE you get married. I think that far too many people get married for the wrong reasons. Marriage is a status symbol; married people belong to a special club; kinda like the one in high school; that single people just can't join without fulfilling certain acceptable requirements. And have you watched tv lately? Every Bridezilla on tv wants a huge wedding, an enormous rock on her finger, 10+ bridesmaids, thousands of people at the wedding; and yada yada yada. It's getting ridiculous. Maybe if people spent more time focusing on the marriage and less time on the ceremony; they might be in good shape. When my ex remarried, his attitude toward me totally changed. I went from being someone he wanted back and pined over; to someone who wasn't worth acknowledging. He somehow thinks now that because he is "married" that he is somehow better than I am. A better person, a better parent, whatever; which couldn't be farther from the truth. Marriage to him is a status thing; marriage to her is a big rock on her finger that she gets to show off. Never mind the kids; who she likes to pretend are hers. I'm not against getting divorced in cases of addiction, abuse, infidelity; but I really feel that people should think twice before they even get married. "

SGT. Me wrote on Jul 20, 2008 9:27 AM:

" Easy fix for this problem. If you owe back child support and own more then one vehicle, then all but one should be sold at auction to pay the back child support. If you own ANY kind of toys (boats, 4-wheelers, motorcycles, watercraft, etc.) then those should be taken and auctioned to pay back child support. If you value hunting and fishing then when you apply for your license, your money should be taken and used for your back child support and you should not be given the license. "

Mike R wrote on Jul 19, 2008 10:52 PM:

" Another mom: Shared parenting may not be the entire answer, but how else do you go about changing the mindset? The pendelum might need to swing a little too far before it settles in the middle. It would be nice to have judges and child support enforcement workers who had actual minds and could think for themselves and treat each case individually. Until that time, what do we do? Something has to be done to break the winner take all, advantage to the female mentality. I wish I knew how to do that another way, but I don't. I also think something needs to be done to promote salvaging the marraige (if possible) when kids are involved, instead of promoting divorce. I find it amazing that it is easier to get out of a marraige with kids involved, than it is to get out of a cheesy cell phone contract. "

Another mom wrote on Jul 19, 2008 9:51 PM:

" Mike R, I agree. I think that each case should be looked at on an individual basis. However, how would shared parenting as a standard NOT lump everyone into one category? How can judges look at cases on an individual basis if they have to automatically award joint custody according to the law? "

Mike R wrote on Jul 19, 2008 8:59 PM:

" Another mom: I do realize that my situation is not the norm, but that is why I feel so strongly the way I do. The system treats me like I am a drug abusing, physical abusing, lying cheater, when I am not. Many others are in the same boat. We are treated as if we are the worst case scenario when we are not. I am not looking to place kids and ex's in jeopardy, but I would also like to see a system that takes cases like mine into consideration without lumping everyone together in the same catagory. "

Mike R wrote on Jul 19, 2008 8:57 PM:

" Another mom: In my case, there was no substance abuse by either party, no physical abuse, and no infidelity. A week before she left, we were still best friends and we went everywhere together. When she left, Child support services immediately got involved, called me a deadbeat and started the process. Social services stepped in and offered her all kinds of counseling options about how to deal with divorce and things like that (we were not talking about divorce yet at that point). We went to a counselor to see what the problem was (I still have no idea) and the counselor talked about how divorce is the best option for some couples and it seemed to me like was his mission - to coach us into a divorce. I have no idea why, like I said, no abuse, no alcohol, no cheating. There is all kinds of support for how to deal with divorce, but very little on how to stay together. I realize that your situation is different than mine (apparently by a long ways), but none of the things you said apply to me at all, and the system still insisted that we become adversarial. Prior to that, we were the couple that worked together and supported eachother on everything. "

Another mom wrote on Jul 19, 2008 8:33 PM:

" Mike R, I agree with you to an extent. While that is your personal experience, and the system may not promote working together, they don't have the control you give them when it comes to how people individually CHOOSE to act. The system isn't totally to blame for the fact that divorced adults can't get along. That is really oversimplfying things. There are generally other factors involved also. Hard feelings about infidelity, drug abuse, whatever the issues were that led to the divorce will inevitably play a role as well My ex, for example, had an affair, used drugs, left the state for 3 years, refusing to see the kids unless I took him back. How can two people who decided they can't live together NOT have that baggage carry over to the legal battle? It's not an excuse; it is the reality of divorce. If two parents could've worked well together before; divorce wouldn't have been needed. My ex would be a deadbeat and uncooperative under either system, but under a system where shared parenting is the norm, this would be his "get out of jail free" card given to him courtesy of the system to place even more of a burden on me; not only care wise, but financially. He would get shared custody and then never excercise it; which would be good for him financially; and the kids wouldn't benefit by having "equal time" with him because he wouldn't want them. He would have the best of both worlds; no child support and no responsibility caring for the kids; because he would refuse to take them. How would this be good for the kids? That I think, is why those custodial parents in my same situation don't support shared parenting. I hope that the next initiative is well thought out and well written to account for these kinds of things that will happen. "

Mike R wrote on Jul 19, 2008 7:30 PM:

" Another mom: There lies the problem. Divorced parents find it hard to cooperate, because the current system is designed for them not to. The system for divorced parents is designed to be the most adversarial system imaginable. When my ex and I seperated, we were working together very well on custody and support issues. Then the system stepped in and basically told us that was not allowed. The more the system became involved, the more adversarial things became. 4 years of the system being involved, and we are like fire and water. There is no cooperation in divorce cases because it is NOT encouraged. Shared custody is looked down upon by the courts. They prefer the all or nothing custody battle, and many times that is what they get. "

Another mom wrote on Jul 19, 2008 5:27 PM:

" To Mike, no I don't think that. I think children will thrive with equal time with both parents; but only IF both parents have their priorities together, can put their own feelings aside and affectively coparent and back each other up; not bad mouth one another to the kids; and can decide between themselves what is fair and what is reasonable regarding support by each side. This is the ideal scenerio; unfortunately; not every child has two parents who can do this; who this will work with; or who can realistically do this. It takes the cooperation of both sides; and if one side is difficult under the current system that won't magically change under a new one. But try it anyway and see how it goes. Socks, I'm glad you clarified that. Not every child has the opportunity to be involved in an ideal situation; those kids that do are lucky; but some aren't. "

Socks wrote on Jul 19, 2008 4:00 PM:

" To clarify .. when I stated "Both parents spending time with the children is ideal" that is what I recommend when both parents are good people and no harm would come to the child. When it comes to my ex, I trust him with my son they have a good time. Moneywise not so good. "

oNE MORE end wrote on Jul 19, 2008 3:30 PM:

" Man or woman, provide for the children you brought into this world. What is money, but printed paper. Love is worth more than the all the money in the world. Childsupport might not seem fair, but then life isn't fair and we make do with what we are dealt.
If you are the one's who owe child support, quit whining, help out your exe's and git er done! Your legacy will live on in your children. There is nothing worse than seeing a child with a broken heart. "

oNE MORE wrote on Jul 19, 2008 3:29 PM:

" One more view. My ex is over $35,000 in arrears. This came about by not paying for the first 12 years of his son's life. How did he get away with this? By taking cash jobs, inverting the last two numbers of his social security number are just a couple of his ploys. The last time he saw his son, was 17 1/2 years ago, he was 2 months old. This was his choice. He moved to another state. He called a lot the first few years to ask for money, or just to talk (from jail). He would call and tell his son he sent him a gift, which never appeared (it's in the mail). If you have no intention of giving your children anything, please don't ever tell them you are. To a 5 year old, who always had the hope of seeing his father, this breaks their heart. I stopped taking his calls. They tried to take his license but he didn't have one to take. Our son went without because it was hard enough just to provide for necessities. I have provided all insurances for my son including paying all medical bills, even though our CS order stated he should provide medical insurance. I was not on welfare, but working full time to provide for us. I am not bitter or resentful, I thank God everyday for blessing me with a wonderful son. I am very proud of my son. My exe's wages will be garnished forever, and that is his problem. It took the two of us to have our child, and if the shoe was on the other foot, I would move Heaven and Earth to provide for my children. "

Mike R wrote on Jul 19, 2008 2:26 PM:

" Another mom: You are correct. Shared time is not going to fix all of the problems. Doing nothing even longer isn't going to fix any of the current problems though either. You talk about what shared parenting is going to do for the kids whos father doesn't care, but what about all the kids that it is going to help because thier father truely does care? Do you really thing that the most caring parent gets custody in all cases under the current "winner take all" system we have now? "

Another mom wrote on Jul 19, 2008 11:24 AM:

" "Both parents spending time with the child is ideal"

But not in all situations; in a majority probably. I really hope those that are pushing for share parenting time take situations into account that are NOT "ideal." I think they would have more support if they did. My ex wouldn't pay support in that case; and would still expect me to solely clothe and feed the kids. There have been times when my parents have picked the kids up and 1 or 2 in the afternoon; and the kids are "starving" and asking for something to eat. In those instances, by kids have reported eating a piece of bologna or a bag of chips! My mom and I have both spoken to child protective services, and so far nothing has come of it. There is plenty of "lazy parenting" going on out there and "shared time" isn't going to improve it. "

Socks wrote on Jul 19, 2008 8:31 AM:

" If a parent was involved prior to the split or divorce, that should be taken into consideration when looking at custody. If one parent barely spent time with the child during a marraige, it doesn't change after divorce. I know both men and women who have custody. More and more men are getting custody these days. Both parents spending time with the children is ideal. Unless the parents can learn to put the past behind them and kids first, it is hard for them to do. "

Mike R wrote on Jul 18, 2008 10:14 PM:

" Another mom: The new mindset isn't going to fix everything. No matter what changes or stays the same, there will always be those people who choose to be less than they could just to buck the system. Some things just are not fixable. As Ron White would say "you can't fix stupid". So why does that mean we can't change things for those of us that are not in that situation? As far as the second job goes, yes that can raise your support payments. If I get a second job before my 3 year child support review, that extra income will be looked at and it will raise the amount I pay. Also, my ex can request a child support hearing once a year and that extra money I make will affect what I pay. Here is my situation. I got a better paying job. In order to take that job, I had to move. My living expenses increased quite a bit at the same time (rent, etc.). When it was time to review my child support payments, my payments went up drastically because of my higher income, but because of the higher living expenses, I actually have less money at the end of the month. My expenses went up. My child support went up. I incurred the cost of moving. And at the end of the month, I have less money than what I started with before I got the better paying job. What is my incentive again? "

Mike R wrote on Jul 18, 2008 10:07 PM:

" Make a change: The problem with the child custody initiative is that the state agencies I mentioned are going to use ever state dollar they have access to, to fight us every step of the way. No matter how the initiative is worded, they always say that it doesn't cover absolutely every possible scenario, so they say it is no good and they will stop at nothing to ensure it doesn't pass. The current system doesn't take into account every scenario either, but that is OK some how (still not sure how that works). It is impossible to draft a law the covers every conceivable scenario, therefore it is impossible to get anything changed in the great state of ND. "

Another mom wrote on Jul 18, 2008 3:40 PM:

" To make a change, isn't there already a minimum guideline? They already base support on the noncustodial parent's income, and I have yet to see someone's child support increase just because the noncustodial went out and got a second job. Support can be reviewed by CSE every 3 or 4 years. The noncustodial parent could make a lot of changes in that time and pick up a lot of extra income and not have it "count." There are way too many excuses and justifications for someone to not support their kids. I agree that custodials should not sit on their buts; I don't; but if they do; then chances are they are on welfare and the child support goes to reimburse the state and not them. It's not possible to sit on your but and still collect child support. The state would offset the money. I would be curious to hear what changes you would make to the current system considering your ex is 20K in arrears. "

Another mom wrote on Jul 18, 2008 3:29 PM:

" Mike R., I understand what you are saying, I really do. My question for you is; how will these new court orders be enforced when some of us NOW can't get them enforced? How is giving my ex equal time with our kids going to automatically make him responsible and accountable; it won't. How will lowering my ex's child support make him a better father; it won't. But it would put more of a financial burden on me; and put my kids in less than ideal surroundings more often. And to use the argument that he will have to be financially responsible for them when he is with them doesn't guarantee my kids WON'T go without food, supervision, or good grooming because of lazy parenting. As far as being on an even playing field goes; my ex and I will NEVER be on an even playing field; not because of the laws and not because of my female "greed"; but because he CHOOSES to do less and BE LESS. He could have gotten an education; but chose not to; he could stay at a job for longer than a few months; but chooses not to; he could see his kids more often; but chooses not to. For a few good men; it would make the difference; but for the rest of us who take up the slack for our deadbeats; it won't make things better; only worse. I think that changing the mindset is a great idea; but the mindset of the deadbeat has to changed also; and that's not an easy feat; or sometimes even a possible one! "

Make a Change wrote on Jul 18, 2008 3:12 PM:

" I am a single parent and my ex is over $20,000 behind in child support. He would prefer to sit in prison than to get a real job and pay to support his kids. Not only that, but he successfully got his child support obligation reduced to $252 a month based on the fact that he doesn't have the same earning potential in prison as he did when he was out. What a bunch of crap.

That being said, I do believe that many men get put through the ringer when it comes to support payments. The amount some men pay for child support is often way more than the custodial parent even earns. How can they call this fair? Child support should not be a way to enable custodial parents to sit on their butts all day and do nothing.

So, what does it take to get a law changed in ND? This is a democracy. Can't we write an initiative and get signatures on a petition? Isn't that how they got the "Shared Parenting Initiative" on the ballot? I definetly think their should be a limit to the amount of support a person is ordered to pay. I also think that their should be a minimum guideline. So, if a non-custodial parent is ordered to pay $400/month (or whatever is deemed appropriate) per child regardless of his actual income it would be a win-win situation. The non-custodial parent would have every opportunity to get a second job without having an increase in his obligation and the custodial parent would not have to worry about having the obligation decreased just because he has other kids or chooses to be a deadbeat. "

Mike R wrote on Jul 18, 2008 2:24 PM:

" Another mom: The solution is easy. Base the custody and child support on real world reasoning and take away the gender issue completely, and then enforce the order equally and fairly. It is a simple solution, but not one that any new law is going to fix completely. It is going to take a new mindset on the part of ND judges, and child support services, and probably even social services. Most state agencies have the "the woman is always the poor victim" mentality when it comes to custody. If we all started out on a level playing field, that would be great, but sadly this is ND and we never have been accused of being a progressive thinking state. What to do with the true deadbeats? I could think of something but the online editor probably wouldn't print it. Lastly, just because women get hosed in the workplace doesn't make it right that the men get hosed in child custody cases. I would gladly change the pay scales around if it meant more time with my kids. "

G. wrote on Jul 18, 2008 11:22 AM:

" I beleive that taking someones drivers licences away just makes it harder for them to work and if they use that drivers licence for work then they can be fired if they get it suspended. I have seen it happen to many times and then now you have an unemployed person who needs to pay child support. Now my wifes ex pays $28.00 per month for each child and she has 4 children and he thinks it is to much plus he lives in another state and I found out that he is hiding his assests putting homes in other peoples names and collecting rent for each of those people who live in those homes. His lawyer knows about it all and thinks as long as it is not in his name he is above the law wow how our system really works. I have worked with the system that helps fathers keep there licences to be able to pay child support but my wifes ex needs a real butt kicking from the goverment to show him he needs to pay more for his sons not less. Oh by the way the boys all have disabilities and it takes alot to take care of them and his $28.00 dollars a month isn't squat it doesn't even pay for the gas to drive them to all there appointments and school. "

Another mom wrote on Jul 18, 2008 8:55 AM:

" And Mike, just for fun why don't you research the pay gap between men and women; how many men get promotions versus how many women; what women are charged for car repairs, dry cleaning, clothing etc. versus what men pay; the number of households that are headed by single women who RELY on child support to support their kids; the number of divorced men who RE-marry versus the number of divorced women; the number of women who are owed child support and the number who ACTUALLY get it OR the full amount, and get back to me. You talk about inequities; yet women have faced inequities for years; in the home; in the workplace, etc. And even though we have "come a long way baby", there are still inequities. Let me know what you find, K? "

Another mom wrote on Jul 18, 2008 8:46 AM:

" Mike R, what exactly is your solution for fixing this problem for non custodial men? Their isn't a solution out there that isn't going to hurt those of us with true deadbeats. Equal custody for example will make your problem better, but my problem worse; so what solution do you propose that would solve the issue for you and noncustodial parents like you AND custodial parents like me? That's the balance that needs to be found, and so far, there isn't one that will work. "

Socks wrote on Jul 18, 2008 7:16 AM:

" My ex has gotten a reduction of support twice. There are people who get hosed on both sides of the fence. Taking away the license after a year of no effort to pay, is fine by me. Magically, the person comes up with the money. It helps them remember they do have resources to get the funds to pay up. "

Mike R wrote on Jul 17, 2008 10:59 PM:

" Another mom: Your point of view is definitely going to be tainted by which side of the fence you are on. When you look around, it sure seems that there are a lot of deadbeats out there - that is until you look at the number of divorced (and many times re-married) people that are out there. The numbers are staggering, so yes there are going to be a high number of deadbeats, but percentage wise, still a reletively small number. Just for laughs, go down to the local courthouse and start going through court records of divorces. See how many times the woman gets custody of the kids over the man even though both parents are equally fit. Then go through the child support orders. Compare the number of men who ask for a reduction in payments and actually get them to the number of women who get thier support reduced. Compare the penalties handed down to men for being behind on payments to the penalties given to women for behind. Then come back here and wonder if there is some unfairness in the system. "

Another mom wrote on Jul 17, 2008 4:09 PM:

" WOW 5% huh? Then I sure know alot of people in that FIVE percent! My ex included. A license being suspended is a stupid idea, I agree. Doesn't matter to my ex anyway. He has had his license suspended; reinstated; and suspended again; don't ASK me how and he still drives. He has to work; he is thousands of dollars in arrears. Here's the cycle with my ex if you are interested: job hops; new withholding order; one or two payments taken out of his check; jop hops again; new withholding order; one or two payments taken out of his check; job hops again..... I'm sure you get the idea. Unfair, Do you honestly think that women actually contemplate their child support payments before getting divorced and base their decision on that? My ex (who is a MAN) calculated what he would get from ME if he had custody of both our kids, which he has tried to do through badmouthing me to the kids, I think the term is parental alienation!! I would guess that women get divorced for OTHER reasons too; like maybe my ex being a jerk at something to do with it! And for those who think that the child support enforcement agency is efficient, full of gusto, and unfair to certain sexes; perhaps more research needs to be done on how many people are STILL in arrears and have had nothing done!! As far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out on that one... "

not a deadbeat wrote on Jul 17, 2008 10:58 AM:

" I don't understand how any non-custodial parent can even become delinquent in child support. The wonderful gustapo of child support enforcement agency here in ND was notified as soon as my divorce was final and immediately sent my payroll department the forms to fill out before I even had a chance to notify my empoyer directly. Then, to top it all off, after a couple months, CSE told me I was behind by sending me a revised witholding letter. I'm paid 26 times per year and the same amount is held out of each paycheck. I asked for a ledger of my account and verified the dates and found it to be current, but they kept telling me I was behind. After further review and a rather unpleasant office visit to the CSE, they discovered that their worker that entered my information into the database inaccurately reported that I was paid bi-weekly, not bi-monthly. It was their mistake but they only admitted it after I made a personal visit to their office.

I agree with paying support for the kids, but the amounts are outrageously unfair being based upon income only. It is not support, it is tax free income for the custodial parent to use as he/she wishes. At the very least, if the state is going to mandate child support be paid, the payee should be allowed access to itemized documentation from the custodial parent showing how the money is being spent. Hey, even if it is all deposited into a savings account, at least I know where the money is going and that she didn't spend it on beer for her boyfriend. "

fred sottile wrote on Jul 17, 2008 9:04 AM:

" everyone, please scroll back up and read lary holland's comment. then find lary holland on the internet and become aquainted with his extremely fair and lucid view of the reality of what is going on in family court. there are others as well who are in his league. meet them and let's work together for fairness in family law. the courts are unfair. the children definitely suffer. "

Mike R wrote on Jul 16, 2008 10:36 PM:

" Onemom: I hear horror stories coming from both sides. How can this be? It all has to do with where you get divorced. Some areas of the state have rather lazy child support enforcement workers. You can get away with being behind on your child support. On the other hand there are the extremely over-zealous workers in other counties who will drag you into court and threaten you will all kinds of stuff and even try to file charges on you for not appearing on a summons that they already dismissed. Enforcement is not equal in all parts of the state - not even close. More and more of the duties are being transferred to one centralized office to try to make things a little more uniform across the state. There is still a long way to go though. "

Onemom wrote on Jul 16, 2008 4:18 PM:

" In my situation, the non-custodial parents current arrears is over $10,000 my child is 14yrs old. His drivers license has never been threatened or suspended nor has his hunting priveliges. I'm not exactly sure how they choose who's next. I don't really push the issue either, he started paying $200 a month about 3years ago and I'm fine with it. So that maybe a reason, I'm not sure. At times I don't agree with how the non-custodial parent is treated and times I agree. But I can say that if the non-custodial parent can own a boat, ATV, Plane, or multiple vehicles and not pay the support. How can they afford to pay for the toys? I think they should have to sell them to pay the arrears. I could go on and on about my situation but I'm sure MANY people are going throught he same thing. "

Mike R wrote on Jul 16, 2008 12:25 PM:

" Custodial parent: I understand that there will always be some who will work the system - both male and female. The reason it has become a gender issue is that in ND custody and therfore child support is most often determined by gender and absolutely nothing else. Here's yet another example of how the system treats non-costodial parents. In my old job, I was paid on the 30th of the month and I was right on time with my child support. My new job pays on the 1st of the month and I was immediately informed that I was a month behind on support - all because of 1 day later payday. I was told that I had to make up the difference immediately or else! Anyone with any computer experience could easily program the computer to accept that 1 day difference, but they insisted they were powerless to do anything about it. I was a victim of the computer program. Funny thing is that I know a female non-custodial parent who had the exact same scenario happen to her. Child support services was all to happy to help her out of the same situation that they were powerless to help me with. That is why it becomes a gender issue. "

Cindyloo wrote on Jul 16, 2008 12:02 PM:

" Who was the rocket scientist who thought that taking away someone's drivers license was the right thing to do? Sure, maybe in a larger metropolitan area, where you have bus service that covers the entire city, a subway, etc., but not in this state, where we are so rural. How do these poor souls get to work? I know of one case in Bismarck, where it all blew up in the poor guys face. He lost everything and his ex got nothing. If you can't drive to work, you can't make money to pay support. "

custodial parent wrote on Jul 16, 2008 11:14 AM:

" I'm not sure why ths turned into a man vs. woman thing. It's about anyone, male or female, that is not paying child support. And I understand that taking away someone's drivers license hinders their ability to make the money they need to pay child support but you'd be surprised how many people are able to "find" the money they owe once they are threatened with this. My ex is over $12000 in arrears. I realize he has a difficult time paying but that is because he chooses to only work part time. I have incurred serious debt trying to put raise three children without that support. He has even bragged about how he "works the system". He receives notification that his license may be suspended so he goes in, sets up payment arrangements and they reset the time clock. He then doesn't make those payments, gets another notification, makes new arrangements and resets the time clock again. I know most non custodial parents are making their payments, but it is the ones that don't that give the rest a bad name. What should be done to those that just choose not to pay? I don't think license suspension is too harsh. My ex doesn't hunt or fish and jail time doesn't really bother him. "

Enough Already wrote on Jul 15, 2008 2:39 PM:

" To mortonmom: My ex is one of those who can't keep a job, finds time to have more kids, collect unemployment and live off of welfare. What about Federal Income Tax Intercept? If he's that far behind, it might be worth it to hire an attorney. "

To Eric wrote on Jul 15, 2008 1:35 PM:

" I wasn't saying that isn't the norm for a child to not care for a parent. I work 40+ hours a week and have student loans, a house payment, blah, blah, blah just like many people I know. What I don't think is fair is the fact that my ex promises to pay for stuff and never follows through with it. If the child support wasn't garnished out of his paycheck I would never see a dime. As far as the shared custody initiative that is a joke--he spends most of his time with me because I provide a stable, safe environment for him which he wouldn't have otherwise. And if you are paying $950 a month for one child I'd say you are getting hosed. Tell your ex to get off her lazy butt and work more. "

Mike R wrote on Jul 15, 2008 12:51 PM:

" Mortonmom: I guess that does add a degree of difficulty being in another state, but you think your case is the majority? Wow, do you need to get out more. You hear all the news stories on deadbeat dads, like it is some kind of epidemic or something. Truth is that deadbeats only make up less than 5% of the total. And everyone else who is not a deadbeat gets treated as if we are. We pay the price because of the few. Also, since we are on the subject of truth, there are far more deadbeat moms (percentage wise) than there are deadbeat dads when it comes to child support. When was the last time you saw a national news story on that one? "

Susan Beehler wrote on Jul 15, 2008 12:15 PM:

" "Support Debt" is a poor term used by our government for a non-custodial parent's way of providing for their children. The government has made a divorce or custody issue more adversial when referring to children as products and providing for them as "debt". Did you know if you are a non-custodial parent paying support; the bank also looks at child support as a debt, they do not count children in your home as a debt yet your children outside the home are? Why is this significant? Children outside your home are factored into to your credit rating, your ability to buy a home just as if they were a credit card debt. Anyone paying a significant amount in support will not meet the debt to ratio standards by a bank when trying to get a home loan. The license thing was an item included in "welfare reform", the federal government provides states money with mandates. Most people do not have a clue how welfare is funded, it is on the backs of parents and children. "

Soldier wrote on Jul 15, 2008 11:46 AM:

" To Online Editor: Awhile back there was an article on efforts to make joint custody the norm for the courts. Do you know the status of that or where I can find more information? "

mortonmom wrote on Jul 15, 2008 11:10 AM:

" Mike R,
My ex has no problem getting child support dropped everytime he quits his job, and he lives in Maine. He even went so far as to plead hardship with unemployment so the max was not taken out of his check. He always hits his three year review on time, but can't seem to keep a job. The last review allows him to pay 224 for both children. Nevermind his "supose" co-pay on insurance that cost me over 800 a month. I am lucky to get a check once a year, and that is if he does taxes and doesn't owe in. This is to the tune of 64,000 behind for 2 children. He has plead his case to a Maine judge with me on the phone and they did not take his drivers license away, but restricted it to driving to and from work. This is the same guy that has a boat, snow sled, wheelers, and a new car every couple of years. Big hand to those Fathers that do care and pay in, but in my eyes, the majority don't care and skip out. "

Eric wrote on Jul 15, 2008 10:21 AM:

" To Unfair, just cause your son doesnt like his dad doesnt mean that is the norm. I pay 950 a month for one child. That doesnt include the insurance for him, splitting ALL medical bills and still buying him clothes, toys or taking him places, all while my ex works 24 hours a week. I spend as much time with my son and I can do to my job. If i was to lose my license due to falling behind, I wouldnt be able to get to work, then what? All in all the child support system is very unfair. Find out how much it takes to raise a child and split it. Mind you this is a kid who is in school and no longer in need of diapers or daycare. "

Mike R wrote on Jul 14, 2008 10:03 PM:

" bit confused: Yes, she did apply for assistance when she moved out. I never denied her access to our money. She just thought that is the way it should be that she would need assistance. From that point, child support services issued me a summons stating that they had proof that I had not been meeting my obligation of support to my kids (basically calling me a deadbeat). She applied for assistance and nothing else and from that the very clairvoyant child support workers assumed that I was not paying anything and was not supporting my kids in any way. How did they come to that conclusion? When my ex and I both told them that I was supporting my kids and in fact I had primary custody of the kids at that time (they never bothered to ask - just assumed that the mother had them), they backed off. Then all on thier own, they decided that the divorce proceedings were dragging out to long and their attorny filed charges of failure to appear on a summons that had already been dismissed. No common sense, no compasion, no ethics. "

To Unfair wrote on Jul 14, 2008 9:50 PM:

" I am a divorced woman that receives less than $250 a month for my child support. We have shared custody--which means equal time with each parent and that seems to work out just fine except that my child thinks his dad is a jerk and could care less if he's around or not. In addition to this support all expenses are to be split down the middle--however, I end up paying for everything--and yes I work fulltime and provide health insurance for him also. I think it is very chauvenistic of you to think that men make more money than women. "

Sam wrote on Jul 14, 2008 9:42 PM:

" Child support can work if it is applied properly. Both parents have an equal duty to support their children. All to often child support is used as the only means to do so. I was forced by my own principles to get a good job and keep it regardless of anything but my responsabilities as a father. Meanwhile my ex's are unemployed or just working part time. This makes my child support more than $800/month for two children. While I struggle to pay rent and bills they live with their parents. Who cares if these children can have a room of their own?? Does it matter if most of the money I send the mothers is spent on the time they dont even have their children?? Educate yourself, and realize women are more likely to default on child support than men. Do yourself a favor and see why our family courts are corrupt and look into SS Title IV-D. "

Ex Child-Support Payer wrote on Jul 14, 2008 8:08 PM:

" I want to break this down so everyone can see what I went thru while paying support. I was ordered to pay $250.00 a month. I was paid every 2 weeks so they took $125.00 out of each check. I was paid 26 times a year so when you add it up, I was paying for 13 months instead of 12 months a year.. My Ex and the kids didn't see a dime of that extra month of money!!!!! I was even hauled into court because the Child Support Enforcement Unit said I was delinquent in my payments!! I started a new job 2 months before I was hauled in and the guy in the Human Resources at this job told me I had been over paying Child support for years!!! I told the CSEU I wanted my money back or credit my support payments so my kids could get it. What a pipe dream that was..My Kids, My Ex and I all got Ripped off in my eyes.I know,I know, I should have figured it out sooner.About taking drivers licenses, I know for a fact you have to be really behind in your payments for it to get that bad.I don't feel sorry for someone who loses his hunting license.If you got money to hunt, you should pay your support first. I laugh my head off every time the CSEU says they hunt down all these QUOTE(Deadbeats) to get record payments..Nobody had to hunt me down to get my payments.. I'm sure there are alot of guys like me.We have jobs and lives to live but do they really go after the jerk that has 7 kids and quits his job every time he gets a summons!!!! I don't think so..What I think is sad is these jerks that don't pay their child support think they can hide but they will never get to have a life until they pay...I worked with a guy who won $20,000 in the lottery,instead of having his new wife cash it in he went in. He sure got caught up in his arrears, "

BJB wrote on Jul 14, 2008 7:23 PM:

" To Yrs. Of Support: You said your husband always paid his support except when he had "no work." Well, his kids still had to be fed, clothed, and taken care of. Who footed the bill during his "no work" periods???? "

Lary Holland wrote on Jul 14, 2008 6:56 PM:

" The best child support one can offer is spending time with their own children. In fact, before a child support order should issue, it should be determined that there is indeed an absent parent...NOT A FORCED ABSENT PARENT. Court orders prevent so many good parents from exercising equal time with their own children despite living in close proximity and being a great parent.

The child support enforcement program is a glorified welfare program that assigns a financial obligation without proof of financial neglect to the children. It is a scam.

http://www.dcfestival2008.com
Lary Holland "

Unfair wrote on Jul 14, 2008 6:36 PM:

" The child support system is a divorce tax, if it were a child support system the amount owed by the non-custodial parent would be based on the cost of supporting a child. IT IS NOT!!! It is solely based on income, the more you make the more you pay, no limit, no justification!

It could also be called the divorce incentive tax, any woman out there with a couple kids and a hubby that makes a few bucks has a tremendous incentive to get a divorce rather than work things out. They quickly look up their take and realize very quickly there is extra cash available in the child support award.

The worst part is the money that is left of the lucrative payment after paying bills does not goes to the college fund, it goes directly into entertainment. Of course by making the dad pay more as he makes more the state has prevented him from ever getting ahead.

It is more than wrong because it really hurts the children in the end. By making the father pay more than his share, (the womans income isn't even considered), it creates a forever strained relationship which is hard on the children and it prevents the father from being able to pay for the enjoyble activities that his children would enjoy.

All of the people that are responsible for this emotional brutality against the non-custodial parent will be judged for the pain they have caused so many and their children. "

Bit Confused wrote on Jul 14, 2008 6:27 PM:

" "Mike R" The only way Child Support could get involved if you had just separated would be your ex would have had to open a case or apply for assistance. Child Support workers are not clairvoyant. Also, you are incorrect when it comes to getting stuck with all of the bills. What probally happened is they are both responsible for the bills, but he walked away and never made a payment so in order to protect her credit (she has to be able to put a roof over their heads, and you can not even rent an apartment or mobile home, much less buy a house with poor credit) she was forced to make all of the payments by herself. I have known that to happen in more than one case. I believe YOU are a good dad, but not every parent cares, some of these laws are in place to help the parent who is not receiving support, love alone does not pay for food, clothes, etc... "

sean wrote on Jul 14, 2008 6:20 PM:

" The fact that this agency has the power to take anything away from a person without ever having to hold a hearing or show proof that the individual had the means to pay violates all sorts of civil rights as well as the constitution. I was a truck driver for 15 years and was ordered to pay a impossible amount of support, only to fall behind and then have my license suspended. That in turn took away my livelyhood. Even with a restricted license, that is only to go to and from work. Not to actually use it to work. By the time my child support reduction hearing was settled, I was behind 40,000 dollars with no means of possibly paying it.
Child Support enforcement is the new Gestapo and the Family Court is their ruthless leader - Hitler.
What happened to duen process?
What happened to innocent until proven guilty? "

I agree w mike r wrote on Jul 14, 2008 5:30 PM:

" Taking ones lisence away prohibits them from being able to drive to a job in order to make money to pay child support. I think that they should instead take hunting licenses or fishing lisences away. Take their fun away. If they are not able to pay child support but can afford the lisence and equitpment to hunt or fish or whatever else-now that is bull. "

yrs of support wrote on Jul 14, 2008 4:08 PM:

" I have been married to a man who paid his support all the time but ys there was times he could not or had no wrk and falling behind hurt us badly they think by taken things away ther are going to make them pay but the really dont . we are finally done paying over 21 yrs of child support and free at last he just got his hunting license back
the system for child support is awful and they are very rude as well "

Mike R wrote on Jul 14, 2008 3:42 PM:

" LJ: Sounds all to familiar. I too have been the victim of the retro-active increase and the threatening letter the same day. I called to ask what was going on and was told that they were following proceedure and were powerless to stop it unless I sent them a payment immediately. They were well aware of the situation. They knew that it was the same day as the judge's ruling but they saw it as being 3 months behind. No common sense at all - NONE. And that isn't even the best one. Before we were even divorced, child support services got involved - served papers on me to appear in court for child support hearing even though we had just seperated. At that point nothing had been finalized and both me and my ex told them to back off - we were still sorting things out. I was told to disregard the notice - it would be dismissed. I called the court and confirmed that it was dismissed. A couple months later, I get a court summons for failure to appear. They were trying to get me on a charge of failing to appear for a hearing that had been dismissed months earlier. Thier excuse is that the divorce proceeding was taking to long. So in thier minds, that justified an illegal court action? "

CS wrote on Jul 14, 2008 2:53 PM:

" You need to understand one important thing about the removal of a license when child support is not paid. By the time it gets to this point, the person has neglected to pay child support for a long time, probably a year or more. This is a total, intentional neglect. In that case it is appropriate to lose the license, if they will not pay to support their children, they shouldn't be out having fun and running around! "

LJ wrote on Jul 14, 2008 2:44 PM:

" To Mortonmom. License suspension is no longer a court procedure. During the last legislative session a law was passed giving child support enforcement the power to suspend a driver license without going thru any court. There are so many horror stories about child support it is not even funny. The last time my income was reviewed an attorney at child support wanted to set my child support 33 percent above the state child support guidelines. He laughed at me and told me that if I didnt like it to get an attorney. Needless to say that is what I had to do. After spending $1400.00 that I did not have on an attorney and accountant the judge set my child support at the state guideline amount. Now for the kicker the same day the judge signed the court order child support sent me a letter threatening to suspend my drivers license and turned me into the credit reporting agencies for being behind on my child support. You see the judge when signing this order raised my child support obligation and made it retroactive 3 months so I was instantly behind in child support. Neither I nor my attorney was aware that the judge had even ruled on my case. It is time that the people not involved with child support were made aware of the brutal underhanded tactics used by child support enforcement. I say to make it fair base child support on both parents income and the actual cost of raising the child. The way child support is currently calculated it is nothing more than a very expensive divorce tax. "

Lou wrote on Jul 14, 2008 2:09 PM:

" Several things can lessen the pain, with love demonstrated through child support being a primary one.

You all are good to have even gotten past that idiotic statement. "

Mike R wrote on Jul 14, 2008 1:30 PM:

" Here we go again: Yes there are some people who are trying to fix this mess, but the state spent our own tax dollars to fight against us to preserve the status quo and thier jobs. Becky: Where did you get divorced? In this day and age, it is impossible to walk away (especially for a man) and leave their spouse with all the bills. There is no judge anywhere that would sign that. "

Mike R wrote on Jul 14, 2008 1:26 PM:

" Mortonmom: That is how it works in theory - and I say in theory. Do you know anyone who has requested a reduction in child support do to being laid off or fired? The judge tells them that it isn't the systems problem and he needs to do something to make the money. On the other hand, a female non-custodial parent who comes in and requests the reduction gets it 99 percent of the time. Can you say double standard boys and girls? "

Peggy wrote on Jul 14, 2008 1:14 PM:

" Aren't child support and visitation two separate issues? If so, which I believe they are in the Court's eye, taking away someone's right to drive (thereby taking away one's right to exercise visitation) is a violation of the noncustodial parent's right to visitation, not to mention the ability to work to get the money to pay for child support. This is no way to collect child support. "

Becky wrote on Jul 14, 2008 1:05 PM:

" I don't think there are any options for collecting child support that should not be looked into. My ex-husband is currently over $10,000 in arrears. He also left me with all of our bills. I have been working for years to try and pay off debt that was accumulated during our marriage. He got to walk off and not worry about the bills. I am in huge debt because of him. I say collect any way you can. These children need to eat and have shelter even if their non-costodial parent is a dead beat. I am very thankful though to have my child and not have to share custody...that is what's best for my child. "

here we go again wrote on Jul 14, 2008 12:56 PM:

" What a stupid idea. Let's take the father's (it generally is the father) drivers license away so he can't get to his job to have the income to be able to make his payments and then also complain when the deadbeat can't come to pick up his kids because he doesn't have a license, proving what a low-life he really is. Why is it ok to make divorced non-custodial parents out to be horrible people? A lot of them are caught in bad situations not of their making and are doing what they can for their children. As a second wife, I have some perspective on this. It is terrible system that no one seems interested in improving. "

Keith S wrote on Jul 14, 2008 12:22 PM:

" There are far better ways to make these people (male & female) accountable and or collect back support etc. than taking their license and stop them from working. You won't unfortunately see it happen here in North Dakota because the people in charge aren't smart enough to figure it out or get it done. And by the way our opinions don't matter to them. I am a single parent who recieves support and with continued monthly phone calls as a reminder to send your payment in because our system won't do it, we recieve it by the end of the first week usually. "

mortonmom wrote on Jul 14, 2008 12:06 PM:

" License suspension is a court procedure, the non-custodial parent has a right to face the judge on this matter. Work permits to drive to and from work are given if asked for. If the non-custodial parent has lost or quit a job, they have the right to face a judge and request a reduction of child support. "

kev wrote on Jul 14, 2008 11:58 AM:

" Since when did throwing someone's sorry behind in jail for 30 days stop being a punishment and taking away someone's privilege to drive (NOT RIGHTS!) become a punishment? Don't you think taking away someone's rights would be a better punishment for someone that violates a court order? "

Mike R wrote on Jul 14, 2008 11:08 AM:

" Eric: In the state of ND, Love = money. The state tells you that you show your love through money. The more money (love) the state collects, the more money (love) they recieve from the federal government for use on thier welfare programs. If they don't collect enough money (love), thier other programs fall short. I am not surprized at all the way that was worded. "

Just have to say wrote on Jul 14, 2008 11:06 AM:

" Take care of your obligations, and you have nothing to worry about. I paid mine as I should, and was glad to do so even in difficult times. I know one man that avoided his support for over 25 years, and is now paying up due to his license being threatened with being revoked. It is a great tool to force these deadbeats to make a payment plan. If they are that much behind they need to set up with a payment plan, and avoid the lose of their drivers license. Don't be a "Deadbeat" parent, the only one your hurting is your child. "

Eric wrote on Jul 14, 2008 10:48 AM:

" Taking away a drivers license is a stupid thing to do......Many times a vehicle is needed to get to your place of employment. That person may be trying to get it up to date and continues to drive and then gets pulled over, gets a DUS, goes to jail, now how is the child support suppose to be payed?

"Several things can lessen the pain, with love demonstrated through child support being a primary one." And just so you know, love isnt demostrated through child support! That is one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Love is shown by spending time with your kids and making lasting memories with them. It isnt bought through child support. Until they get older, they dont know even know what child support is. "

NDr wrote on Jul 14, 2008 10:10 AM:

" I do believe that taking of the drivers and professional licenses is extreme if not ludicrous and should only be done as a last resort to people who are not working or looking for work. But, I do agree with such things as hunting licenses. Hunting is EXPENSIVE and if you aren't paying for the support of your kids you certainly shouldn't be spending your money out hunting. "

filius wrote on Jul 14, 2008 9:41 AM:

" Not seeing that punishment makes sense when someone breaks the rules is part of the problem. Driving is just that...a privilege.

Losing my driver's license sure would make me go out of my way to be accountable to the system. "

Mike R wrote on Jul 14, 2008 9:38 AM:

" Before anyone starts bashing me, let me say that I am 100 percent current on my child support payments. Actually, I am even ahead a full month. I think that suspending a person's license is insane. The logic is so very flawed that it isn't even funny. All I can do is shake my head in disbelief. Take away someone's license so you eliminate his potential of ever getting a job is the absolute sure fired way to guarantee that he will NEVER be able to pay his support. Common sense completely thrown out the window on this one. "

My thoughts wrote on Jul 14, 2008 8:27 AM:

" I think that the suspension of licenses should be a last resort. I do know there are non-custodial parents who flit from job to job-never lasting for more than the time it takes to get set-up in the system....than it's on to the next one. ...and having more kids in between jobs. I'm not saying all non-custodial parents are like that but I do know of some. "

DodgeLover wrote on Jul 14, 2008 7:34 AM:

" When taking away the driver's license - is there some safety net there for the driver, that will allow, for example, a work permit? If one's ability to go to work is taken away, isn't that compromising the ability to produce an income?

I know people will say the usual thing like taking transit, carpooling, riding a bike, walking, etc. But be serious. While those are good alternatives, perhaps those are not sincerely viable options for all? "

Socks wrote on Jul 14, 2008 7:19 AM:

" A person has to be pretty far behind and be making no effort to pay before the license is suspended. It takes about a year of non-payment before this happens. "

Post Your Own Comment

All online comments are limited to 350 words total.
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.
We value and respect your privacy, but The Bismarck Tribune might
disclose certain information to governmental entities if served with subpoena.