Susan, perhaps in some cases uncollected funds have been uncollected by the state, but non-collection is a dis-incentive to the state in its receipt of Title IV-D. Most often and quite contrary to your belief, the uncollected funds which amass to these exorbatant arrearages accrue from Family Courts which refuse to make child support awards commensurate with the income of the non-custodial parent. What do you think about a father (true story!) who makes $35,000/ year and has a child support payment of $4,800/ month? How is he suppose to pay it? He has 71% of his check garnished weekly and he has amassed over $60,000 in arrearages in a little over two years of divorce.

My second point to you goes to your conclusion that moms and dads cannot get justice because the courts are incompetent. Your statement is half true on half the point! When one parent gets the kids and the other is removed from the life of the kids, but is required to remain as a funding agent, half the parties in court got justice, some might say; while the other half got no justice at all! But, you ignored Dr. Baskerville's entire point (Try reading the book). What about the kids? Or, do you believe that children's best interest is served with only one parent actively involved in their lives?

Susan, get a clue! This is not about Dads not wanting to pay child support. Nor, is it about moms not being able to collect child support! Both propositions are the collective states' straw horses to keep both sides- moms and dads from uniting against a corrupt governmental system which uses children as its tool! This is about parents- both moms and dads, who both want to be actively involved in their childrens' lives!

To further the point, do some research on Foster Care and Title IV-E, which strips both parents of custody so that the state can collect Federal monies after it has kidnapped children from both of the parents. Title IV-D and E are money pools for all states and the states are tapping into this annual trillion dollar pile through the kidnapping of all of our children, either in divorce or in terminating both parent's rights through child protective services!

Do the research! Google Child Protective Services abuses! Google Title IV-D abuses! Visit some of the many websites and groups on the net. The stories you'll hear are both astounding and too numerous to be false! After you have done your research; After you have read Dr. Baskerville's book; Then please post AN INFORMED comment to this blog!

Cooking the meat to make ready to eat let this meat bring out the accent of cooking the meet.
Turn the heet on on the way to heat the meat for a taste with the accent on the meet.
Getting ready the accent to put on the meat, for the meet, there’s meat that’s meet to be cooked as others meet in the way to weigh their meat for the wait to be cooked, by weight.
Now, whose meat is meet to get cooked first are whose meat gets cooked for the accent on the meet, for the flavour of the meat.
That is, how do you say, “Whose accent on the accent to accent whose meet to cook for those waiting to accent on the accent of the accent of the meet where there’s meat to be cooked?”
(i.e., First to court the meet, Too court the meat first.)
© 2006 greg m james

Therein, lies the problem, that without a well-compensated attorney, something most single parents cannot afford when they, like me, are trying to pay the rent and put food on the table, the small amounts of support go uncollected. The time most likely the support will be collected and paid.

The government child support enforcement system is a pathetic fiefdom that most often does not act in the best interest of the child. No wonder father's rights groups are up in arms! I wish the moms were as well organized and as well financed. They could join together to actually get something done instead of sniping at each other.

I have been in the Florida system for over a year and my case has yet to go before legal review to establish a court order. My file has been bounced among staff more times than a basketball. So, that when I do get into court, hopefully before the little tyke turns 18, there will already be a sizable arrearage which, I predict will never be collected.

Now, in a perfect world, the dad (or mom) would be contributing to the support the genetic material he or she donated and we wouldn't need lawyers, courts, useless government employees and sad professors.

Yawn, Mr. Baskerville makes the same tired comments about greedy custodial parents trying to take the poor non-custodial parent to court to gain extraordinary judgments so they can live the lavish lifestyle.

What really needs to be addressed is the incompetence of the system on behalf of all parties.

Then you get to support enforcement. If a decree for child support were rendered and sent to support enforcement and enforced from the day it arrives, there would be no arrearages (some states are collecting money from 20 years back. One can't help but wonder why, or who was at fault, or how this could happen). Ideally, to make things right, no support issue should be dealt with in a divorce hearing. The custodial parent should have to apply for support the same way they apply for welfare. Their income, assets, etc., should be looked at and they should have to first be found eligible to receive support based on the same standards they would have to meet to get AFDC. Then, if they are found eligible to receive child support, the absent parent should be called in and his/her financial picture looked at. At that point a decision should be made on what the absent parent can afford to pay. Also should be taken into account where the children are each day (a simple calendar with X's would work) provided each month by each parent. Who had to feed them what dates should also be taken into account. This should have to be on mandatory monthly reporting just like foodstamps. That way you might come up with something fair where child support is concerned.

As to all this back support that's being collected for 20 years back, or ten years or four or whatever, where did the fault lie for NOT collecting it if it was court ordered all those years. It all comes back to the idea that if a person is the custodial parent and they want child support it should start with them. THEY should have to get off their dead butts and go apply to get it and then next, support enforcement should have to try to collect. If neither of these things happened then anything in those vacant months should be a moot issue. Period. I think they call that "laches" (sitting on your hands). There may be more, but I can only think off hand of two states that apply this and in FL it depends on whether the support worker likes you whether they will even consider it. If someone really dug into it most of the back support owed in this country is not because there was a deadbeat dad or mom (incidentally, that's profiling) but because either the custodial parent didn't want the money for whatever reason or because support enforcement had orders and failed to collect. So either the custodial parent should have to forget about it if they didn't TRY to collect, or support enforcement should have to pay them out of their pocket if there was a court order in existence that they didn't enforce. At 18, or when a leaves home (whichever comes first) that should be the end of it. Whatever wasn't taken care of by then should be water under the bridge.

Just my thoughts......................

The sexual revolution boils down to many things and it gets beyond just sex...here's a few things to start

1) the social barriers against marriage/relationships are gone. It's ok if it's a different skin color, religion, creed, significantly older/younger (provided it's legal) etc

2) Labor saving devices eliminated what was mostly womens work 100 years ago...washing dishes, washing clothing, drying clothing, microwave ovens.

3) Birth control...condoms, abortion, "the pill" and technically viagra. So then we have the concept also of "the pill" for men in the future

4) laws are now going BACK towards some responsibility. In massachusetts of all states they are considering a law that if it's discovered that a person is NOT found to be a biological parent that they no longer have to pay child support

5) economically to some it might just make sense not to have kids. If college = debt and debt = quite a long time to pay off then it might just fit.

The courts presently force one parent to be the “non-custodial parent” for the sole purpose of extorting so-called “child support”.

Child support should only be paid by mothers/fathers who don’t take an equal role in raising their children. If the mother/father would rather pay child support, than have equal custody of the child/children, then there isn’t much anyone can do about that. The issue is when one parent is denied custody of their children, through no fault of their own, and then forced to pay child support.

When a child is born out of wedlock, the father needs to be afforded the equal protection of our laws which is currently not happening. The father needs to be able to give the child up for adoption, the same as the mother has that choice. If the man wants to father the child, then he should get 50/50 custody of his child, with no child support ordered, unless agreed to by the mother and father.

We need to get the government out of the “child support racket” altogether. Every parent has a constitutionally guaranteed right to the care and custody of their children and “must” be afforded the equal protection of our laws. This isn’t just a good idea that would be nice if it were enforced; this is the law of the land and must be enforced.

Anyone who stands in the way of the equal protection of our citizens is a “domestic enemy” and should be dealt with accordingly.

Kevin Merck

If there was 50/50 custody, the relationship would be maintained, but then the state wouldn't receive the money they want - for every dollar collected, each state receives a percentage of federal incentive money.

For those parents that file false charges against the other, the liar should be put in jail. Enough is enough already. Too many lives have been ruined because of such lies. If there were actual consequences, this would occur less often.

Child support - why is it based on gross income? When the parents were married, they lived off of their combined net income. When child support is necessary, it should be based on net income, and there should be enough money for the non-custodial parent to live on. What good is there if the child can't visit the non-custodial parent if this parent is living on the street, because he/she can't afford to live on what's left over after child support is deducted.