Jobless rate helps state collect child support

[madinmaryland]

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=125F19C209ACE208&p_docnum=3&p_theme=gannett&s_site=idahostatesman&p_product=IDSB

Idaho's rising jobless rate is apparently helping the state collect child support, as Department of Health and Welfare collectors garnish unemployment benefits.


Director Richard Armstrong told the Joint Finance-Appropriations budget writing committee last week that rising collections from deadbeat dads have been an "unexpected" silver lining to Idaho's economic malaise.

Some who historically haven't paid child support have now filed to collect unemployment benefits after joblessness more than doubled in a year to 6.6 percent, the highest in more than 20 years.

Armstrong says his employees can more easily garnish deadbeats' state checks - including to cover payments that are months in arrears.

How long this boost lasts is unclear. State unemployment benefits generally end after a maximum of 26 weeks.

----

It doesn't say how much they are taking out, though it could amount to nearly the entire check, if they are including any garnishments for months in arrears.

:shrug:

[aikoaiko]

1. Devil is in the details. but I could see the same % applying the new income stream.

[madinmaryland]

2. I would assume they would apply the percentages based on state statutes

to determine how much is withheld from the checks.

That's only an assumption, though.

[Kalyke]

5. It is based on a percentage, but there is a bottom.

In Tennessee, for example, the bottom is $150 for the month. The maximum unemployment check is about $250 per week, so, if the Deadbeat Parent balances his/her (mostly his) budget with this in mind, he/she can easily live without going homeless.

[lapfog_1]

3. Of course, that doesn't really fix anything.

The parent with the child doesn't get more money. The spouse that owed the support still needs the unemployment help and will end up homeless and on the street (which doesn't make it easier for them to find new employment). And it doesn't balance the state budget (though it helps).

Most importantly, it doesn't put one dollar into circulation, which is what we need right now.

Not defending deadbeat spouses, but how does starving them and making them homeless help anyone?

[madinmaryland]

4. It doesn't. I only helps the lawmakers look tough against "deadbeat" dads.

Considering the deadbeat Dad's they are going after are the one least able to pay the child support.

[Kalyke]

6. How does it not put the dollars into circulation.

My ex only recently started paying his support on time and I use every bit of the measly sum I'm given into circulation almost immediately (food, clothing, school expenses).

:shrug:

[lapfog_1]

10. Most states pay child support even if they can't collect it.

However, if your state doesn't do that (punishing you because of your deadbeat spouse), then it will help you.

(I could be wrong, perhaps most states don't pay the full child support if they don't collect, in which case this will help, but my other point about making a bad situation worse for the deadbeat parent, thus limiting future child support collections, is still true)

[47of74]

7. It doesn't.

Of course the lawmakers and the family departments don't give two shits about such considerations in this area.

[aikoaiko]

8. IIUC, the parent with the child IS getting more money than previously

because the deadbeat parent wasn't paying.

Something is better than nothing.

[lapfog_1]

11. I think this varies from state to state, no? - n/t

[aikoaiko]

12. Perhaps.

[byrok]

9. "Deadbeat Dad"

What a stupid fucking term. It implies that anyone in arrears is a man and a deadbeat.

[madinmaryland]

13. Well, considering the way the courts award custody, the vast majority

of non-custodial parents are fathers. As a result, most parents in arrears would be fathers.

Not that it is right, but that's what is happening.

[byrok]

15. Just because one is in arrears

does not mean that they are a deadbeat. Don't even get me started on how screwed up the courts, and the public in general are with their way of looking at custody. Fathers, the forgotten victims of state sanctioned accepted prejudice.

[madinmaryland]

17. The MSM's way of demonizing people. The fathers really do get the short

end of the stick. If the mother says she wants physical custody, she get's it. If the father want's physical custody, he has to spend thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars trying to get custody.

Don't get me wrong, though. I think both parents should be required to share equally in the support of the child (physically and financially). Also, the courts should be allowed to consider changes in income of the parents, if they were to lose their jobs, which rarely happens.

[byrok]

18. Totally agree. n/t

[Scout]

20. got any links to back up your claims?

when men actually bother to try for custody, they get it most of the time. Most of the time the mother gets custody, the father didn't ask/try.

[madinmaryland]

21. The reason I mention this,

is the information has come from several attorney's I have consulted with over the last 17 years. They were all willing to help me, though they all indicated it would cost thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars to get physical custody of the child. Everyone to the word, say that if the mother wants physical custody of the child she gets it. The only thing that could change it would be to prove she is involved in illegal activities or is abusing the child. Neither was true. In the end, the best I could do was get joint custody, but not physical custody.

[lapfog_1]

14. Yes, I used gender neutral terms in my response on purpose.

as there is a growing number of "deadbeat moms" as well.

In the only case of child support payments I was aware of (a close friend), the family court awarded his former spouse nearly 40% of his take home pay for child support for one child (they had two, the second was institutionalized and that was paid from an insurance trust fund). But for most of the first child's life she choose to live with my friend, but the mom still collected $3000/month in child support.

The whole system seemed very unfair. He spent thousands more in court costs trying to end his child support (since he was supporting the child himself) but to no avail. He is now 60 and will have to work another 10 years or more to retire.

[byrok]

16. Thank you.

Many people do not look at both sides. I spend an extra $5000 a year in erroneous court expenses to defend against bullshit charges. My lawyer says that even though we always prove our case, the other party is entitled to due process. This hurts my family financially, and emotionally every year for no reason other than "she can".

Our justice system is based on destroying fathers.

[Scout]

19. only to those who don't understand language....

if you aren't a man and you aren't in arrears, it does not apply to you.

[madinmaryland]

22. Did someone say that??

:eyes:

[Scout]

23. read the post i replied to before you roll your eyes....

#9
It implies that anyone in arrears is a man and a deadbeat.

[madinmaryland]

24. ...

The first paragraph of the artical is a comment .. "rising collections from deadbeat dads". Apparently he is only collecting from Dads?? I am assuming he is using "deadbeat dad's" generically.

He then refers to his collection activities as "Armstrong says his employees can more easily garnish deadbeats' state checks" without any reference to male or female.

Sloppy reporting?

[Scout]

25. i replied to post 9, not directly to the op n/t