State plans to pull fee from payees

The Federal Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 requires the payment of $25 per qualifying case each year. The state Department of Human Services' Division of Child Support Services paid the fees until Sept. 30.

The funds were required to reduce the federal deficit, said Gary Dart, the director of the Child Support Services division.

Like other agencies, Dart said, DHS has been ordered to cut 5 percent from its operating budget because of the state's revenue shortfall.

"We hope the $25 federal fee is easier on the families we serve than cutting services would have been," Dart said Wednesday.

Dart said the state originally chose to cover the fee as a form of customer service because it wanted to put as much money in the hands of families as possible.

"That was before the bottom dropped out of our own state funding situation," he said.

The agency is one of the last in the country to pass the fee on to customers.

The agency will send out notices to those affected before the fee is charged, Dart said. Many recipients can expect to see the fee on their first payment after programming changes are made in February.

Dart expects some complaints.

"People are having a hard time," he said. "This is not something we are doing because we want to.

"You know, however, on the other hand, they get very good services from

us so far for free. If $25 was all you had to pay to have some help to collect your child support, that is not a bad deal."

The fee is expected to generate about $1.1 million that will be passed on to the federal government.

The fee will be charged for those whom the agency has collected and sent at least $500, the agency said. The fee is based on the federal fiscal year, which is from Oct. 1 to Sept. 30. The agency is reviewing cases going back to October.

Those who receive Temporary Assistance to Needy Families and those who were on Aid to Families with Dependent Children are exempt from the fee.

The Child Support Services division handles more than 190,000 active child support cases.

Father charged for waterboarding his 4 year old daughter

A soldier waterboarded his four-year-old daughter because she was unable to recite her alphabet.

Joshua Tabor admitted to police he had used the CIA torture technique because he was so angry.

As his daughter 'squirmed' to get away, Tabor said he submerged her face three or four times until the water was lapping around her forehead and jawline.

Tabor, 27, who had won custody of his daughter only four weeks earlier, admitted choosing the punishment because the girl was terrified of water.

Human rights activists demonstrate waterboarding in front of the Justice Department. A soldier father stands accused of waterboarding his daughter because she couldn't recite the alphabet

The practice of waterboarding was used by the CIA to break Al Qaeda suspects at Guantanamo Bay. Detainees had water poured over their face until they feared they would drown. President Barack Obama has since outlawed the practice.

Tabor, a soldier at the Lewis-McChord base in Tacoma, Washington, was arrested after being seen walking around his neighbourhood wearing a Kevlar military helmet and threatening to break windows.

Police discovered the alleged waterboarding when they went to his home in the Tacoma suburb of Yelm and spoke to his girlfriend.

She told them about the alleged torture and the terrified girl was found hiding in a closet, with bruising on her back and scratch marks on her neck and throat.

Asked how she got the bruises, the girl is said to have replied: 'Daddy did it.'

During a police interview Tabor allegedly admitted grabbing his daughter, placing her on the kitchen counter and submerging her face into a bowl of water.

Sergeant Rob Carlson said the punishment was carried out because the girl would not recite the alphabet.

Police have not revealed Tabor's military service, but his base is home to units that have served in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Tabor has been charged with assault and ordered to remain on his base and have no contact with his daughter or girlfriend, who has not been named. He is due to appear in court this week.

The girl has been taken into care. Her natural mother lives in Kansas but Tabor had been granted custody by a court.

To see more chid support material click here

Hey, thats not neglect, just a beat down!

I found this court case were a son knocked his mother down. Now what surprised me was the outcome of her reaction. I am glad that someone in the Appellant Court system does live in the real world.

The New York City's Administration for Children Services filed a petition of neglect against Tanyan Mc. for hitting her son in the face with the heel of her shoe, giving him a bloody nose. They also removed him from her custody. Due to this incident, ACS said that she had also derivatively neglected her other child.

Now what is surprising is that Child Protective Services failed to confront that sometimes children endanger their parents. This is particularly, although not exclusively, true of women who feel or who are threatened by overgrown teen sons.

The Queens Family Court Judge, Edwina G. Richardson-Mendelson, agreed with ACS.

Tanya however believed that what she did was not neglectful, so she appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department.

The court described the incident between Tanya and her son in the following words:

"The finding of neglect in this case is based on a single physical confrontation between the mother and her adolescent son, Corey Mc. (hereinafter the son), who at that time was 15 years old and 5 feet 10 inches tall. The evidence in the record established that the mother and the son had a troubled relationship. In this particular incident, the mother confronted the son over what she believed to be a specific instance of inconsiderate behavior, after which she left his room and closed the door. The son came out of his room and directed a stream of profanity-laced invective at the mother, who attempted several times to withdraw from the confrontation. When the son continued his verbal abuse, the mother either punched or slapped him in the face. The incident escalated further, and the son knocked his mother down and continued to curse at her; she got up and hit him on the face with the heel of her shoe, bloodying his nose. The mother then immediately called the police to seek medical attention for the son."

The Supreme Court sided with Tanya on November 24, 2009, declaring that the neglect finding was not supported by the preponderance of the evidence.

The court stated, "Given the age and size of the son, the provocation, and the dynamics of the incident, the mother's acts, which, as she readily acknowledged, were not an appropriate response to her son's conduct, did not constitute neglect."

Just a old fashion beat down, by any means necessary!

To see more of Child support the things you never hear click here

NY state court rules that dad did not neglect child by failing to pay support & by fighting with mom

Yesterday, the New York State Appellate Division, Third Department, ruled against Chenango County Department of Social Services and reversed a Supreme Court judge's ruling that Andrew PP neglected his daughter by having verbal and physical altercations with her mother while she was present, by failing to go for domestic violence counseling, and by failing to pay child support.

In its ruling the Appellate Division defined neglect by quoting the law. "[A] party seeking to establish neglect must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, first, that a child's physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired and second, that the actual or threatened harm to the child is a consequence of the failure of the parent or caretaker to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing the child with proper supervision or guardianship" (Nicholson v Scoppetta)."

The standard for neglect is that the petitioner (Chenango County DSS) must show by a preponderance of credible evidence that the "child has been harmed or threatened with harm. In the absence of such proof, the statutory requirement of impairment or imminent danger of impairment will not be satisfied and neglect will not be established"

While the upper courts always give deference to the lower courts, as they did in this case, the court ruled that the petitioner had failed to meet the burden of proof, and therefore the case had to be reversed. Furthermore, the court made several points in relation to the subject of neglect.

First, the Appellate Division stated that "Proof that respondent has failed to meet his child support obligations does not, by itself, rise to the level of neglect." In other words, there was no evidence the child was harmed by the father's failure to pay child support of $50 a month. Indeed, the child was being well cared for.

Secondly, while the court stated that verbal and physical altercations between the father and mother were inappropriate, it also had the following to say:

"We further find that petitioner has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent's conduct in engaging in verbal and physical altercations with Heather OO. impaired or posed an imminent danger of impairing Alyssa's physical, mental or emotional condition. While the parties agreed that they frequently argued with one another, and that such verbal disputes often involved screaming and hollering, with respondent ultimately leaving the home before things escalated, such proof does not constitute the level of conduct that has been found to serve as a basis for neglect (see Matter of Anthony PP., 291 AD2d 687, 688 [2002]). Although there was evidence that respondent and Heather OO. engaged in a number of physical altercations, there was no proof that Alyssa was present in the home during any such altercations, with the exception of an October 2004 incident. As to that incident, the record is devoid of proof that physical injury resulted to any participant or that Alyssa — who was then an infant and in a crib upstairs — witnessed or was otherwise aware of the incident..."

Finally, on the issue of going for domestic violence counselling, the court said, "Nor was there any evidence to support petitioner's assertion that respondent neglected Alyssa by failing to obtain counseling for domestic violence. No evidence was presented establishing that respondent was ever required to obtain such counseling. Moreover, respondent's testimony that he went to a counselor and discussed the domestic issues between he and Heather OO. went unrebutted."

T.I fights child support

I am so tired and frustrated with the notion that some women think that because they have a baby by you that they are entitled to what you have earned. When 50 cents said have a baby by me and be a millionaire, ladies its just a song!

Although the mind set that I had your baby entitled me to your riches, is way out of line!

T.I . is a prime example of that, he pays $3,000 a month in child support and another $3,000 in expenses, that is $72,000 dollars a year and $1,276,000 million dollars when the boys turn 18. His baby mama, Lashon Dixon feels that she should get $10,000 a month. For most of you that is $120,000 a year, or $2,160,000 million when the boys reach 18.

Sure the children will be taken care of but why should the mother drive a Bentley because she had a baby by him?

I expect that these men should take care of their children but giving a woman $20,000 a month when she does not make $20,000 a year is way over the top and the court has to put a cap on what can be paid to these women! If they don't who will?

To see more of Child support the things you never hear click here

For Hip Hop News & Entertainment at DimeWars.Com

What if a DNA test showed you weren't really the father?

I've been meaning to blog for awhile now about an article I read in last week's Sunday New York Times Magazine about dads who find out through DNA tests that they aren't the real father. The main thing holding me back: I couldn't figure out what I thought about it.

While I usually have a pretty clear idea where I stand on most parenting issues (see vaccines, co-sleeping, or religion, just to name a few) I had difficulty figuring out where I stood on this one -- or, for that matter, what I would do if put in the same situation.

The article navigates the complex legal issues that arise when someone who always thought they were a child's father finds out that, in fact, they are not.

The article notes that, much to many "duped dads" surprise, a DNA test confirming they aren't a child's biological father usually has no impact on their legal obligations to the child, such as paying child support if they split with the child's mother.

Indeed, the article is centred around the story of one man -- identified only as Mike L. -- who found out through DNA tests that the daughter he'd raised for years was not really his.

After getting divorced, his ex-wife then married the man who was the child's actual biological father -- yet Mike is still legally obligated to pay child support:

“I pay child support to a biologically intact family,” Mike told me, his voice cracking with incredulity. “A father and mother, married, who live with their own child. And I pay support for that child. How ridiculous is that?”

As the article explains, the legal principle that requires fathers in these situations to keep on paying child support is that the best interests of the child come first , that children shouldn't be punished financially for the deceptions of their mother. In general, this seems like a fair principle -- it would seem wrong for children to be plunged into poverty because their mother had an affair years ago.

It also seems to make logical sense when you look at it in the context of child custody. If a man loved and raised a child as his own for years and then found out the child wasn't biologically his, most of us would think it unjust and cruel if the mother could then deny him access to the child based simply on a DNA test.

So if a DNA test isn't enough to sever a man's parental rights, it seems somewhat logical that it's not enough to get him out of his responsibilities, either.

But cases like Mike's raise an interesting moral question. In theory, there's no reason the child has to suffer financially in his case. The girls' biological dad is living with her and could easily step up. Indeed, it seems unjust that her biological father is able to weasel out of his responsibilities because of the way the law recognizes parental rights.

While I can't decide what I think about how the law should deal with cases like Mike's, there's one thing I am clear about: There is something seriously wrong about men who, upon learning a child isn't biologically theirs, abandon them completely.

Ironically, some courts actually reward this morally abhorrent behaviour -- because a father who abandons his child when he learns it's not genetically his can make a stronger case later on that DNA was all that ever linked him to the kid.

There was something deeply sad about reading in the story about cases of fathers who completely stopped seeing their children upon learning they weren't biologically linked:

The last time [Carnell] Smith saw his one-time daughter was nine years ago, when she was 11. His outrage at Chandria’s mother and the system remains close to the surface. “We’re penalized for trusting our wives or girlfriends!” Smith seethed to me. He has long since lost track of Chandria. It is as if she ceased to exist once their biological connection evaporated.

Chandria, however, has not forgotten Smith. Her memories of her 11 years with him are happy ones, which makes what happened afterward so hard for her to grasp. As Chandria, who is now 20, remembers it, Smith just disappeared from her life. “I was just a kid, so I didn’t really understand what happened or why,” she said. “He never did explain why he didn’t want anything to do with me anymore.” Chandria says he wouldn’t answer when she called him at home, or he would promise to call back but never did.

I know that -- from a strictly evolutionary perspective -- it makes no sense for a man to take care of a child who isn't biologically his (indeed, as I've written before, that partly explains why everyone always says babies look so much like their dad).

But even a believer in evolution has to concede that we are more than just gene machines -- how else to explain adoptive parents who devote so much time and money to raising and loving children they know aren't biologically their own?

I've often thought that parenting is an interesting balance between selfishness and selflessness. In many ways, we invest in our children for selfish reasons -- they carry our genes into the next generation and their success reflects back on us as parents.

Yet much of what we do as parents is about selflessly putting our children's needs above our own.

It seems to me that men who completely abandon a child because a DNA test says they aren't biologically linked reveals that, for them, parenting was only ever a selfish pursuit.

If a child isn't going to pass on their genes, they see investing any time in the relationship as a complete waste of time.

It's hard not to read an article like this and wonder what you would do if you found out your child wasn't biologically yours. (This is also, I've learned, the kind of thing that -- even when posed as a purely hypothetical question -- can offend your wife.)

I know I can't imagine abandoning The Boy in such a situation -- both because it would be an act of cruelty against a child I love but also because the emotional bond I have with him is about more than simple biology.

Child support cheats to be stopped from flying out on overseas holidays by Child Support Agency

Child Support Agency records have been matched with Immigration Department data to catch jetsetting deadbeat parents.

At least 860 have so far been stopped from leaving the country.

Human Services Minister Chris Bowen said the Departure Prohibition Orders could be lifted only by clearing outstanding debts.

"Parents with overdue child support should arrange to pay it before they head overseas, to ensure their children are financially supported," Mr Bowen said.

"If the customer attempts to leave Australia while a DPO is in place, the customer will be stopped by the Australian Customs Service or the Australian Federal Police."

The bans are used for long-term maintenance evaders who have defied past attempts to get them to clear their debts.

Related Coverage

• Investigators spy on deadbeat parents Herald Sun, 11 Nov 2009
• Pay fines - or you walk Courier Mail, 21 Oct 2009
• Tax bonus snares child support cheats Herald Sun, 7 Jul 2009
• Repo men and dirty tricks on the increase Adelaide Now, 14 May 2009
• Reader's Comments: Mums repay duped 'dads' - The Courier-Mail Courier Mail,

More than $5 million in unpaid child maintenance was recouped last financial year by stopping debtors from leaving the country.

In one case, a man with a $40,000 child support debt was barred from leaving the country by the AFP. He repaid his debt the same day.

The National Council of Single Mothers said more such departure bans should be issued.

"The agency can identify the debtors, but the agency tends to pursue the highest-value debts, with the higher prospect of success," the council's Dr Elspeth McInnes said. "Those with a long history of avoidance tend not to be pursued either."

The Lone Fathers Association's Barry Williams said all parents - men and women - had a "natural obligation" to care for their children.

"They shouldn't be allowed to leave the country unless they've put in place a stable arrangement to take care of their kids," Mr Williams said.

More than $132 million in outstanding child support was collected by the CSA last financial year. About $114 million of that was recouped by intercepting the tax refunds of child support debtors.

Another $12 million was clawed back by unravelling complex financial arrangements used by some non-custodial parents to avoid paying their fair share.

The CSA handles about $2.8 billion in payments each year, supporting 1.15 million children.

To see more child support news click here

Church members rally behind pastor charged with child sex crimes

LOWELL — Keith Pettis bowed his head as the congregation he led in song and Scripture clustered around him in fervent prayer.

About 30 people attended a Tuesday night justice rally for Pettis, the pastor of New Life Church who is accused of molesting a 12-year-old girl. The Rev. Troy Montgomery made an emotional plea for support, his baritone barks rattling the small sanctuary at Pettis’ 128 Robbins St. church.

“We do not care what the naysayers say,” Montgomery said. “We are here to do one thing: To support him irregardless of what the outcome is.”

Civil rights activist John C. Barnette of True Healing Under God Ministries spoke for more than an hour, urging those in attendance to suspend judgment and stand beside the embattled pastor.

Barnette wants at least 42 people dressed in black to attend the 42-year-old’s trial. He also asked for the support of nine pastors — one for each criminal charge Pettis faces.

Pettis, of 8604 Catawba Cove Drive outside Belmont, was arrested Aug. 21. He is accused of sexually abusing the 12-year-old girl in August 2006 and September 2008, fondling her on Sept. 20, 2008, and forcing her to perform a sex act on him on Feb. 1 of this year, according to arrest warrants.

He was charged with three counts each of sex offense and statutory rape/sex offense and one count each of first-degree sex offense with a child, attempted sex offense and taking indecent liberties with a child.

Pettis was released Aug. 21 on a $50,000 secured bond, according to detention officers at the Gaston County Jail.

A probable cause hearing had been scheduled, but was canceled because Pettis was indicted by a Gaston County grand jury, said District Attorney Locke Bell. Pettis’ trial date has not been set.

Pettis has been behind the pulpit for 15 years, Barnette said. He continues to work as New Life Church’s pastor and leads Sunday worship services.

Barnette said he and Pettis were boyhood friends in South Carolina. He believes the pastor has been falsely accused.

“This is my brother, not only by nature, but by spirit,” he said. “My spirit tells me innocence, and that’s what I’m fighting for.”

Relatives and church members should support Pettis even if they entertain doubt about his innocence, Barnette said. He compared the pastor to O.J. Simpson, who was acquitted of the murder of ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman in a controversial 1995 verdict, but later held responsible for the killings in a wrongful death civil suit.

Barnette believes Pettis will be exonerated, but he said the community should support him regardless of his trial’s outcome.

“What if he is guilty?” Barnette said. “The truth of the matter is we’ve still got to pray, pastors of Gaston County. We’ve still got to raise him up.”

Pettis did not speak during the rally and did not answer questions afterward on the advice of his attorney, Larry Hoyle.

Montgomery, the pastor of House of Shammah on U.S. 321 South, said fellow Christians shouldn’t pass judgment on Pettis.

“We will not bite and devour our own,” he said. “I believe it is time for us to come together and support him irregardless of what you think. I believe that at the end, the truth will be revealed.”

WHITE v. WHITE

WHITE v. WHITE

Douglas WHITE, Appellant
v.
Kara WHITE, Appellee.

CA 09-485

Court of Appeals of Arkansas, Division II.

Opinion Delivered November 18, 2009

KAREN R. BAKER, Judge.

Appellant, Douglas White, appeals an order entered in Pulaski County Circuit Court finding that his overpayment of child support was voluntary. On appeal, Mr. White argues that the circuit court's finding was clearly erroneous. Mr. White also argues that he was entitled to credit for involuntary overpayment of child and spousal support to be applied against future obligations of spousal support. We disagree and affirm.

The parties filed for divorce in December 2003. On February 17, 2004, the Pulaski County Circuit Court issued an agreed temporary order of support that required Mr. White to pay temporary alimony and child support in the amount of $4300 a month beginning February 1, 2004. The court issued an order of wage assignment on the same day. On June 30, 2004, the trial court entered the final decree of divorce, ordering that Mr. White pay a total of $3660 in child support and alimony per month. These payments were to be made by wage assignment. Subsequently, Mr. White's employer continued to withhold $4300 monthly from his wages, despite the language in the divorce decree. Ms. Michelle Vocque, payroll coordinator for Mr. White's employer, testified that she received an order dated February 19, 2004, and that pursuant to that order, she began withholding $2,150 semimonthly from Mr. White's paycheck. Ms. Vocque testified that the next order she received was on August 16, 2006, when the Office of Child Support Enforcement issued a notice of wage assignment to Mr. White's employer reflecting the correct amount of Mr. White's child-support obligation under the terms of the divorce decree. Ms. Vocque did not, however, receive a supplemental order regarding wage assignment pursuant to the June 30, 2004 divorce decree.

Mr. White testified that after the entry of his divorce decree, he understood it to be the responsibility of the court, child services, and his employer's payroll coordinator to make any adjustments in the amount of child support to be withheld from his check. He stated that he did not believe it was his responsibility to arrange for any adjustment in withholding. His testimony was that he "relied on the Court and the lawyers and everybody else to get that accomplished." Despite receiving a pay stub indicating the exact amount being withheld for child support, Mr. White testified that it was not until August 2006 that he realized that he had been overpaying on his support obligation since the entry of the June 30, 2004 divorce decree. Ms. White testified that she was not aware that Mr. White had been overpaying his child and spousal support. Mr. White calculated that he had overpaid child support and spousal support in excess of $15,000. As a result of the discovered error, a new wage assignment was entered in August 2006 and forwarded to Mr. White's employer. On August 22, 2006, Mr. White filed a motion for modification of support and for reimbursement of overpayment of support. On September 22, 2006, he filed an amended motion to modify order for child support and for reimbursement for overpayment of support, setting forth the corrected calculation of the overpayment amount, and filed a brief in support.

As to the reason for overpayment, Mr. White testified that he "did not make these payments voluntarily" and that he "never expressed to [Ms. White] that [he] was making a gift to her of these amounts." Mr. White explained that at the time, he was not in a position financially to be able to make gifts of this nature to his children or his ex-wife and that he had incurred several thousand dollars in credit card debt. Because he owed approximately $2300 to Ms. White on other obligations, he and Ms. White had reached an agreement that he would continue making child-support payments until October 2006, several months after his obligation to pay child support ended.

At the conclusion of the hearing on January 25, 2007, the court requested that both parties submit a "letter brief," containing a list of what the parties owed each other, what had been paid, and a summary of how the parties wanted the court to proceed. The parties completed the court's directive and submitted "letter briefs," detailing the amounts owed and the amounts paid. On April 11, 2008, the parties entered into an agreed order for terminating support on June 1, 2008, as to the parties' youngest child, who turned eighteen on December 12, 2007, and would graduate from high school in May 2008. However, Mr. White's remaining support obligation of alimony payments in the amount of $2,000 a month were to continue until July 1, 2014.

On January 13, 2009, the trial court entered an order finding that the overpayments withheld from Mr. White's paychecks were "voluntary expenditures" and Mr. White was therefore not entitled to any reimbursement. The order stated that "[a]lthough this Court recognizes that [Mr. White] overpaid the amount of child support and that the mistake was not the fault of [Mr. White] or that of [Ms. White], the Court notes that [Mr. White] bears the responsibility of making the child support payments" and "[Mr. White] is the party who should be responsible for knowing the correct amount." This appeal followed.

Our standard of review for an appeal from a child-support order is de novo on the record, and we will not reverse a finding of fact by the circuit court unless it is clearly erroneous. Office of Child Support Enforcement v. Goff, 96 Ark. App. 238, 240 S.W.3d 133 (2006) (citing Ward v. Doss, 361 Ark. 153, 205 S.W.3d 767 (2005)). A finding is clearly erroneous when, even though there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Id. (citing Adametz v. Adametz, 85 Ark. App. 401, 155 S.W.3d 695 (2004)). In reviewing a circuit court's findings, we give due deference to that court's superior position to determine the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be accorded to their testimony. Id. (citing Evans v. Tillery, 361 Ark. 63, 204 S.W.3d 547 (2005)).

Mr. White asserts that the circuit court's finding that his overpayments of child and spousal support were voluntary payments was clearly erroneous. We disagree. It is well settled that the circuit court is not required to give credit for voluntary expenditures by a parent that are above the child-support amount. Guffey v. Counts, 2009 Ark. 410, ___S.W.3d ___; Glover v. Glover, 268 Ark. 506, 598 S.W.2d 736 (1980); Brown v. Brown, 76 Ark. App. 494, 68 S.W.3d 316 (2002); Stuart v. Stuart, 46 Ark. App. 259, 878 S.W.2d 785 (1994); Buckner v. Buckner, 15 Ark. App. 88, 689 S.W.2d 584 (1985). This is the case because the custodial parent relies on proper compliance with the decree in making arrangements for the child's care. Brown, supra (citing Glover, supra).

Mr. White attempts to distinguish the cases on this issue by stating that the overpayments were not voluntary because there was a "mutual mistake of fact with respect to the correct amount of support that was to be withheld from Mr. White's paycheck" and he was not aware that he was overpaying. This argument fails. The term "voluntary" is defined as "produced in or by an act of choice; acting of oneself; not constrained, impelled, or influenced by another." See Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2564 (1993). Mr. White was aware of the terms of his divorce decree, and he was in a superior position to know how much child support was being withheld from his check. The execution of the wage assignment was within his control, and it was his responsibility to verify that he was making child-support payments in the correct amount. We hold, therefore, that the trial court's finding that Mr. White's overpayments of child support was voluntary is not clearly erroneous. See Guffey, supra (affirming this court's decision in Guffey v. Counts, 2009 Ark. App. 178, ___ S.W.3d ___, and holding that Guffey's overpayment were a voluntary expenditure of child support in excess of what was required by the circuit court's order, and while he was free, as any noncustodial parent is, to pay more child support than is required by law, he was not entitled to credit for those voluntary expenditures); Glover, supra (holding that the circuit court erred as a matter of law in awarding the appellee any credit for voluntary expenditures made by him for the benefit of his children); Brown, supra (holding that ex-husband's overpayments of child support were gifts to his ex-wife, and the overpayments properly were not applied toward ex-husband's medical expense arrearages). Because we affirm the trial court's determination that the overpayment in child support was voluntary, we do not address Mr. White's remaining arguments.

Affirmed.

PITTMAN and KINARD, JJ., agree.

Drug dealers belong in jail

My name is Roger W. Henderson. I am writing this because twice now in the past week-and-a-half I have seen two drug dealers get a smack on the hand for selling drugs instead of being sent to prison where they truly belong.

They are selling poison to our kids, mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters, and are a leading problem that leads to more serious crime in our communities.

They slowly kill people and rob them of their lives. But do they get prison sentences? No, they get 6 months, and 20 days respectively, in the county jail with work release privileges.

This really gets under my skin deep. I served four years in the Wisconsin Department Of Corrections (prison) for owing my ex-girlfriend a little over $9,000 in child support, which cost the taxpayers almost $200,000.

Plus, I have been on extended supervision and parole since my release in March of 2007, and when I thought I was done with all the paper, I get notified that I had 64 months of consecutive probation.

I have been paying my child support since my release. I have learned my lesson the first time being locked up, believe me.

I do not think the Sauk County District Attorney’s Office, nor the Sauk County Courts, are very fair with the way they do their work.

I respect the judges and the tough job they were appointed to do, but the district attorney’s office is leaning toward being crooked, if they are going to go to the extremes of pushing cruel, and unusual punishment for a person owing child support, but will let drug dealers walk free after basically getting a nothing sentence.

I think it is time the community stood up for their rights, and got the people who are letting drug dealers walk free, out of office.

Child support, I get a lengthy sentence that still is not done even after four years in state prison, and almost three years of paper.

I really am starting to hate this state, and what the courts and public officers stand for ... this goes all the way to Madison and the (baloney) laws they are passing.

I think I will also submit this to The Washington Post

This will make for some good news statewide: If you want to sell drugs and get away with it come to Baraboo. What a message to send to all the other drug dealers out there, huh.

But if you owe child support, better stay away, you will get a life sentence, especially with the D.A. we have now. Beware all child support owers — the D.A. is a woman.

Yet my fiancée has an ex-husband of hers who owes her dang near $20,000 and the Sauk County Child Support does nothing to push to get her child support owed to her. Fair and equal enforcement of your laws to suit the election you may be running in at the given time.

It must have been an election year in 2003-04 when I was given my sentence?

To see more about child support click here

22 Morris residents arrested in child support sweep

The Sheriffs’ Association of New Jersey announced this weekend the apprehension of 864 New Jersey delinquent parents in a bi-annual child support warrant sweep for f

There were 22 Morris residents arrested in the sweep, owing $499,258.51. Of that, $15,884 was collected in the raids.

The goal of the three-day sweep is to apprehend non-custodial parents who have failed to pay their court-ordered child support, according to the organization. Additional targets include parents who have failed to appear at court hearings to establish child support orders or orders for medical support.

The sweep was done in cooperation with the New Jersey Office of Child Support Services. The Sheriffs Association of New Jersey was the lead agency in this event.

Sheriff’s officers from the 21 New Jersey county heriffs’ offices, with assistance from other agencies, canvassed the state in search of offenders over the course of the three-day sweep, which began Dec. 1. Throughout the state, 864 warrants were executed, and out of an outstanding $13,741,646 owed, approximately $164,861.73 was collected.

“With this state wide round-up of parents that do not fulfill their court ordered obligation, all 21 county sheriffs are committed to bring these adults to justice,” Sheriffs’ Association of New Jersey president and Somerset County Sheriff Frank Provenzano said. “One of our main concerns is the children of this state, and we need to ensure they have not been neglected and will have a white Christmas. "