Child support and driving

[DrFaroohk]

So yeah I agree the punishment is BS too. Punishments should only be able to apply to the thing they are related to. Driving should only be taken away with driving offenses.

[Canarr]

As I see it, the main topic for discussion and debate was whether suspension of a driver's license for non-payment is really the best way to go about trying to collect from deadbeat parents.

That's not how I perceived the OP. To me, it looked like two separate issues put forth (he even separates them into First and Second), so I feel free to offer my opinion on both topics. And, also, to inquire for more facts on any of these topics.

In any case, I agree that it's strange to use suspension of driver's license as a punishment. I would expect a letter or two, an official Due notice, and finally a court order to pay, if I were to fall delinquent on any bills.

As to paying late vs. not paying at all: there's a point where the difference is getting hard to tell. If you're supposed to pay weekly, but pay once per year, then a lot of those payments are going to be months late. How on Earth is a social services worker going to be sure that you're going to pay at the end of the year? Because you did the last few years? How, exactly, is that proof you're going to do the same this year? After all, the social services worker has a boss, too, whom he answers to, and who may not be satisfied with the answer, "Hey, don't worry, he'll pay in December. He always does." - if the question was, "Why are January's payments late?"

[Andara Bledin]

As I mentioned, driving is a privilege.

There are about a thousand things that can get your license yanked, and most of those are things that have other repercussions, too, it's just that loss of driving privileges seems to work better than most.

I mean, really, are they going to bother fining someone who already isn't paying what they're supposed to be paying? That's just stupid.

As for garnishment, why should the state and the workplace have to jump through hoops to take care of something the employee is shirking? Trust me, getting garnishment payments through is a right pain in the ass and a huge waste of time for a business. They're not the ones failing to hold up to their responsibilities, so why should they be the ones to have to work to make it right?

And they're certainly not going to jail you; they're after money, and you being in jail won't get that, either.

^-.-^

[AdminAssistant]

Yes, driving is a privilege, but as mentioned elsewhere, there are many places in this country where you don't have any alternatives. There are many towns where there isn't public transportation or taxis. There are people who live there who live alone and who may not have someone they can count on to get around.

My Dad has had his license revoked for a year. (DWI, well deserved.) But, I still worry about the fact that he lives 5 miles from town and has to rely on friends and neighbors to get groceries, his mail (has to have a PO Box), and that, since he made money working as a hired hand for local farmers, now has no income to speak of. I'm not saying that he shouldn't be punished. But they also want him to pay a significant court fine...how is he supposed to earn the money for the fine when he can't work? Something's counter-productive there.

[telecom_goddess]

Here in Oregon I have an ex who still owes me at least 4000 in back child support. He had his license taken away as a result of non payment. He lost his house due to non payment. He also had a bench warrant out for his arrest for non payment..and think he has a new one in place now. He currently doesn't work and lives with a relative in an area with no transportation so I'll NEVER see that money.

And all this over 93 fucking dollars a month. Really? you can't afford 93 bucks a month?

So yeah not letting him drive is not helping me get my money. I wish he could get a job somehow so they could garnish his ass and get me my money.

[DrFaroohk]

When I was gainfully employed I had my wages purposefully garnished because ex-wife kept "losing" my child support checks and I'd find out I was 3-4 weeks behind. I only started doing this tax thing in the last few years (probably should've clarified that) but still...it works. I just wish they'd get over it. And again, feel lucky I pay at all. Many guys don't.

I'm wondering if actually calling social services and explaining it to them...again...is going to help. Or alternatively, the childish threats. Like "Hey, stop taking my license, or next year when we do our taxes we file the injured spouse form and you get next to nothing."

But people take those sooooo badly.

[KellyHabersham]

The first one only if your work schedule works into the ones held by your family and friends and believe me that can be difficult and the latter only in the city. Most places in our country don't have a good Taxi or Mass Transit system.

And depending on how much you make a taxi can be prohibitively expensive.

Most places I have lived you were lucky if you could walk to work otherwise you better hope you can drive or your never going to work.

I would definitely have to agree on this - speaking from my personal experience, when my daughter was still on the W.I.C. program, it was really tough trying to schedule appointments around a time when my mom was able to drive me. (She was working full-time as a teacher, and the W.I.C. office I was assigned to wasn't accessible by bus....not from our house, anyhow)

[Andara Bledin]

Not having a car for reasons beyond your control sucks.

Not having a car because you didn't do something you were obligated and capable of doing? Maybe you should have done what you were supposed to have done in the first place.

^-.-^

[DrFaroohk]

Or the assholes in charge could pull the ginormous dicks out of their asses and just understand the fact that it gets paid one way or another.

[dendawg]

Or the assholes in charge could pull the ginormous dicks out of their asses and just understand the fact that it gets paid one way or another.

Which, no offense, kinda completely glosses over the point that if you paid the support according to the court order, instead of when you feel like it, you wouldn't be having this issue. Just saying.

[Andara Bledin]

Which, no offense, kinda completely glosses over the point that if you paid the support according to the court order, instead of when you feel like it, you wouldn't be having this issue. Just saying.

Bingo.

In this situation, either pay according to decree, get the decree changed to match when you pay, or do the injured spouse thing.

But doing nothing and then bitching because the state is doing what the state is supposed to do is just asinine.

^-.-^

[Canarr]

I find the whole thing just baffling, at this point.

DrF: do you really not see how it is a problem to pay bills - any kind of bills - up to 51 weeks after their due date? I mean, have you tried the same "arrangement" with your electrical or gas company? How about mortgage payments? Anything?

[LewisLegion]

Seriously. I'd love to see how this would fly with any other financial obligation. Oh, I don't pay my mortgage every month but I pay it all in one lump sum at the end of the year. I mean, what difference does it make? It gets paid one way or the other, right?

Wait, what do you mean you're taking my house away? That's so unfair!!

[Ree]

Child support money goes to support... your children!
It's meant to help the custodial parent pay for food and clothing or whatever else the child may need.

It's rather sad that the courts do have to step in and set up payments for this support. It baffles me that the parents ordered to pay think of it as giving the other parent money rather than realizing they are providing for the children that they helped bring into the world.

The courts structure the payments to ensure a steady flow of money for the needs of the children.
By paying in one lump sum once a year, that means the other parent has to go a whole year trying to cover the bills.
Then, at the end of the year, they get a lump sum that they have to make stretch for another whole year until the next lump sum.

It may be easier on the parent who is paying, but, again, should the courts worry about making it easier on the person who has to pay, or should they worry about making sure the children are provided for?

True, there really is no connection between taking away one's ability to drive as a punishment for defaulting on support payments, but taking away a drivers' license is a pretty serious thing, and it is hoped that the threat of it should be enough incentive to make sure the money gets where it should.

[protege]

True, there really is no connection between taking away one's ability to drive as a punishment for defaulting on support payments, but taking away a drivers' license is a pretty serious thing, and it is hoped that the threat of it should be enough incentive to make sure the money gets where it should.

That's exactly why they do it. It's not just with child support either. In quite a few places, you'll lose your license...for things such as getting busted for underage drinking. To many kids, being able to drive is a big deal. Go where you want, not have to depend on the parents...plus it kinda cramps one's style when you have to resort to a 10-speed Schwinn