Child Support & Filing for custody

[SideArmed]

How many of you out there would support legislation that would make it more difficult if not impossible for a parent to file a petion with the court in a custody hearing, if said parent was behind in child support?

Vote in the poll and discuss.

 

[Fletch]

Hell to the no.

ETA: Meaning I don't support such legislation. You flipped the yes/no logic in the poll from the text in your post.

 

[SideArmed]

Hell to the no.

ETA: Meaning I don't support such legislation. You flipped the yes/no logic in the poll from the text in your post.

Why?

I realized after I posted that the question in the poll is not identical to what is in the post. But it's the same idea.

So you feel that even though someone is deliquent on their child support they should be allowed to take someone to court, causeing both sides to spend more money on attorneys fees, and tying up the court docket?
Doesn't it make sense that all sides should be upholding their ends of the previous agreement before they are allowed to go back to court?

 

[Phil502]

They should be able to file and let the Judge decide the case, IMO.

 

[LEaSH]

A good parent is not always a economically well off parent.

If a parent is broke all of the time,I can see how it would make life difficult for raising a child, but for some people money is secondary to loving, disciplining, and teaching a young person.

People label poor folks irresponsible all of the time. The truth is that there are countless ways to go broke - some are preventable, some are just crap luck.

 

[SideArmed]

They should be able to file and let the Judge decide the case, IMO.

Should the trial court judgge have the option to dismiss the case prior to hearing any evidence? Or should it go all the way to the hearing and then the judge have that discretion?

 

[SideArmed]

A good parent is not always a economically well off parent.

If a parent is broke all of the time,I can see how it would make life difficult for raising a child, but for some people money is secondary to loving, disciplining, and teaching a young person.

People label poor folks irresponsible all of the time. The truth is that there are countless ways to go broke - some are preventable, some are just crap luck.

I can understand and sympathize with that statement.

But should that parent be allowed to file for custody prior to becoming current on their deliquent child support.

 

[Denny347]

Let a judge decide that. Making an across the board ban is not the answer. Custody battles are the worst but it should be up to a judge whether they are in violation or not. If they are in the rears enough, there will be a warrant issued. Being arrested for it would put a damper on custody.

 

[Hogwylde]

I'm 49. Don't have any kids, never have had any, won't EVER have any.

Don't care who has custody or who pays or doesn't pay child support. It's not my problem, won't ever be my problem, doesn't affect me in any way.

I.....DON"T....CARE.

 

[mike8170]

I can't say what I want yet, since I have more hearings soon. As far as I am concerned, child support is nothing but the socialist promotion of the welfare state.

 

[Denny347]

I'm 49. Don't have any kids, never have had any, won't EVER have any.

Don't care who has custody or who pays or doesn't pay child support. It's not my problem, won't ever be my problem, doesn't affect me in any way.

I.....DON"T....CARE.

That was helpful.

 

[mike8170]

I'm 49. Don't have any kids, never have had any, won't EVER have any.

Don't care who has custody or who pays or doesn't pay child support. It's not my problem, won't ever be my problem, doesn't affect me in any way.

I.....DON"T....CARE.

You might want to re-think that statement, when the state provides an ex-whoever an attorney, that cost more that a person is behind.

I actually agree with Denny347 for once

 

[SideArmed]

Let a judge decide that. Making an across the board ban is not the answer. Custody battles are the worst but it should be up to a judge whether they are in violation or not. If they are in the rears enough, there will be a warrant issued. Being arrested for it would put a damper on custody.

Yes I am sure that being arrested would put a damper on filing for custody, I am pretty sure they are not going to let your child bunk with you in the pokey.

Yes custody cases are tough, but is not the fact that the person is deliquent in support a violation of the terms set forth by the court in any previous agreement?

So, should the judge be able to dismiss the case prior to hearing evidence. Or, based solely on the petition, if the response states that the petitioner is behind on support?

I can't say what I want yet, since I have more hearings soon. As far as I am concerned, child support is nothing but the socialist promotion of the welfare state.

Why?

Support is for the child, not the parent. The money is not the parents to spend on things for themselves, it is to be put toward the support of the child. Calling it a socialist promotion of the welfare state, I feel is grossly overlooking what the intent of child support is. If calculated correctly, and I don't see how it wouldn't be as there is a pretty cut and dry worksheet, it should be a fair assesment of the parents incomes and take into account what each already pays in support of a child.

You might want to re-think that statement, when the state provides an ex-whoever an attorney, that cost more that a person is behind.

I actually agree with Denny347 for once

Can someone get a court apointed attorney for a custody case? I wasn't aware that they could. TIL.

 

[Phil502]

Should the trial court judgge have the option to dismiss the case prior to hearing any evidence? Or should it go all the way to the hearing and then the judge have that discretion?

I would think that the Trial Judge should know the full story before making the decision, only seems fair to the parent that may have gotten behind in payments for legitimate reasons.

 

[Fletch]

Why?

I realized after I posted that the question in the poll is not identical to what is in the post. But it's the same idea.

So you feel that even though someone is deliquent on their child support they should be allowed to take someone to court, causeing both sides to spend more money on attorneys fees, and tying up the court docket?
Doesn't it make sense that all sides should be upholding their ends of the previous agreement before they are allowed to go back to court?

I'm not a fan of legal goads. I'm especially not a fan of screwing with the legal system in ways that could potentially have an adverse effect on a child's welfare.

 

[LEaSH]

I guess it would have to be determined if the payer didn't pay because: it was impossible to pay, or refused to pay when he/she could've paid with making certain self-sacrifices.

That's going to be on the determination of a judge. The parent filing for custody had better be able to show how much they made over the time period and how much they spent and on what.

It sounds intrusive but if someone makes a baby and the other parent is unbearable to live with then that is the not anyone's problem but the baby makers. And the poor kid(s) of course.

 

[hornadylnl]

Why do I get the feeling the op has a personal stake in this question?

 

[ryanbr]

People should be able to fight for custody reguardless of support. To many reasons why may be behind on support. Different story if just a deadbeat parent not paying. Failure to pay support will not be used as a reason to prevent visitaion.

Yes the money is supposed to be for the kids, but if you believe that that is where it goes you have another thing coming.

By the way I pay my 600 a month support religously. Wouldnt think of not doing it.

 

[ryanbr]

Why do I get the feeling the op has a personal stake in this question?

Id say you were right!

 

[beararms1776]

I'm not a fan of legal goads. I'm especially not a fan of screwing with the legal system in ways that could potentially have an adverse effect on a child's welfare.

I agree with this.^^^^
And the definition of goads: Provoke or annoy (someone) so as to stimulate some action or reaction.