One of the state's most delinquent in paying child support faced a judge January 2008; he is accused of fleeing to Canada to avoid paying more than $300,000 to help care for his three children over six years.
David Fisher was working in Hopkinton as a computer programming consultant earning more than $140,000 a year when he agreed in a January 2000 court hearing to pay $883 a week , which breaks down to $45, 916 dollars a year in child support for his children, who were 10, 16, and 17.
He later that year requested to have his payments reduced but the court rejected his request. For no common reason he quit making payments and was found in contempt of court for failure to comply with the child support order. The last payment was received April 17, 2001. Since then, his unpaid child support, plus interest and fees, has reached about $493,000, according to the Department of Revenue.
"The reason the amount is so high was he agreed in court to the stipulation that he could pay $880 a week, and then he didn't," said Robert R. Bliss, spokesman for the Department of Revenue. "He paid a couple thousand dollars before he stopped paying."
I have been in this situation before in life where the courts make a ruling based on the income that you are currently making. Although if you loose the job, or even receive a pay cut; the court has already determined that you were making that kind of payment and you still should. So if you get a job paying 70,ooo a year, the court will tell you that you need to get another job to make up for the rest of the income. In most cases men starts another family and that family suffers because of the income that he is paying for his first family. I unfortunately did the same thing this guy did, I did not pay for a year or two but when I was locked up for a few hours, that help me get on track. I am thankful that the courts have loosened up a little. The ideal that the man is always the blain is not fair! The only thing that a real man wants is to provide for his children and his family. Taking at advantage of a man with the court gaining profit for a man who owes child support goes against the grain. Why can the court charge interest and fees for money that is not owed to the court, but to the child? After a point the interest and fees out weigh what is actually owed, meaning that it can never be paid off. I think that the child support statues still need to be reviewed, for the court has no right to profit and the child never sees that money.
