Child Support Laws are changing

The ideal of this blog when I first started was to tell all the horrors of child support, but after the first story I began to think that one could become redundant! So my ideal was to take it to the next level of reporting and show some news with a twist. So one thing that I continue to try and stress is that the law is not fair or impartial when it comes to men and how the Courts deal with the.

Thank goodness for the Child Support laws changing for the better and protecting the men a little more. Although I don't understand what these judges are thinking when they impose these gross and unreal income tax on these super stars income! I am shocked that these women who make their own millions still expect the men to give them another few millions of tax free income.

Now with the New law that passed, it is suppose to change everything in how the calculate the income. Now the income is shared and if both parents make $50,000 they spilt child support equally. The days of not considering the mothers income is gone. Taking care of the child is the interest of the Court... Or that is what they tell the fathers of the world...

The new Income Shares formula will be applied in any marriage dissolution (divorce), legal separation, paternity action, or other action where child support is ordered for the first time, or changes an existing child support order. The Income Share formula applies to all cases filed in court after January 1, 2007.
Pre-existing child support orders will not automatically change because there is a new law. For one year starting January 1, 2007, modifications of pre-existing child support orders are allowed only in limited situations, or if the parties agree to change the support. See Limits to Modifying Existing Orders in 2007.

So remember when decision are made now this is the guidelines that they are suppose to be following

The general legal concept of "child support" is made up of three (3) parts:
1) basic support = costs for a child's housing, food, clothing, transportation, and education costs, and other expenses to care for the child
2) medical support = health insurance and other medical/dental costs
3) child care support = child care costs when parents go to work or school
"Joint child" is a dependent legal child of both parents in the support action.
"Non-joint child" is a dependent legal child of one, but not both parents, in a support action. [NOTE: A step-parent is not considered the "legal" parent of his/her step-child, unless the step-parent legally adopted the child.]
Important Factors
The Income Shares formula includes the gross income of BOTH parents in figuring the amount of child support.
The amount of court-ordered parenting time (visitation) is considered in calculating "basic support." If a parent has the child between 10% and 45% of the time, the parent gets a 12% adjustment (reduction) in child support owed. If the parenting time is less than 10%, there is no adjustment to child support. Percentage of time is generally calculated by counting overnights the child spends with the parent.
The law presumes that both parents can or should work and earn an income. The Income Shares formula considers this "potential income" as a factor in determining support.
By law, if the parties do not provide specific details about their income, the court will set child support based on other available evidence, including past work experience, the current legal minimum wage, or it will set a minimum amount provided for in the law.
to see more Child Support news click here

A former Top Model suing Braylon Edwards for child support

Former "America's Next Top Model" contestant is reportedly suing former Browns wide receiver Braylon Edwards for up to $70,000 a month in child support.

The New York Post reported that 25-year-old Nik Pace gave birth to Edwards' son in August.The article says Edwards filed in Atlanta to be recognized as the boy's father, but Pace objected and sued for child support in NewYork.

According to the Post, Pace's lawyer said Edwards filed in Georgia because the state is traditionally less generous with child support payments.But a source said that Edwards wants to be a part of his child's life and filed in Georgia because that's where Pace lived and gave birth, only moving to New York in November.Edwards' attorney, Randy Kessler, said Edwards has loved and supported his son since before he was born.Pace was a finalist on "Top Model" in 2005.

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. "

Dwayne Rudd ordered to pay back child support of 540,000

The former Cleveland Browns linebacker Dwayne Rudd was ordered by a Tennessee district court to pay more than $540,000 in child support on Monday.

U.S. District Court Judge John Nixon followed the recommendation of prosecutors and gave Rudd a five-year suspended sentence which requires the former football player to contribute about 10 percent of his income to child support payments, the Associated Press reports.

Because retirement from the NFL significantly changed his income, however, the athlete will be due back in court on a later date to determine exactly how much back support he owes and what methods of payment to pursue.

Rudd had previously been ordered to pay $7,500 per month, though he has failed to make a single payment since 2004.

Never an elite linebacker, Rudd is known to most football fans as the player who cost his team a win in 2002 by throwing his helmet in the game's closing seconds. After a penalty was called for his excessive celebration, the opposing team was able to kick a game-winning field goal.

Samantha Light sentenced to 125 years for Molesting 3 Children

Samantha Light was sentenced to 125 years in prison Wednesday for molesting three children she was babysitting. Light pleaded guilty to charges in October that she had performed sexual acts on her own 2-month-old girl, a 1-year-old boy and a 6-year-old boy and videotaped them with boyfriend Stephen Quick.


The judge handed down the 125-year sentence after Light read an emotional statement asking the judge to show leniency. Light and Quick were arrested after a series of incidents took place between September 2008 and February 2009. Quick is still awaiting trial.

After the sentencing, the mothers of the other two children spoke to the media. Larrisa Smith, the mother of one of the victims said she didn't believe Light was sincere in her statement.

"I want her to think about my kid, and her kid, and her kid. I want her to think about her daughter and all the things she's missing because she chose to miss those things. She chose it, she brought it on herself," said Smith.

Some Mich. dads say paternity law unfair

Daniel Quinn keeps a room in his apartment furnished with toys, dolls and dress-up costumes for his 3-year-old daughter.

But it's unclear whether he'll ever be able to bring her home.

Even though DNA tests, the child's mother and Quinn all agree he's her father, Michigan law says he's not.

That's because the girl was born while the woman was married to another man -- who is still her husband -- meaning Quinn can't demand visitation or even pay child support.

Quinn is among a growing number of men who are challenging Michigan law, claiming that biological fathers should have a stake in the lives of their children.

"I'm a good dad," said Quinn, 32. "Why should I not have rights to my child? Everything I do is for her."

Giving unwed biological fathers rights may only trouble kids, said Jerry Cavellier, adjunct professor of family law at Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Auburn Hills.

"It's in the child's best interest that the husband be viewed as the legal father," Cavellier said.

"How confusing would it be to that child to have two fathers? To change the statute ... would be a disservice to the children."

Candace Beckwith, the mother of Quinn's daughter, says she just wants to keep her family intact.

"She needs to be with her brother and sister," she said. "They're family."

Since the Paternity Act was enacted in 1956, Michigan courts have concluded the purpose of the law was to ensure financial support for illegitimate children rather than allow them to become a financial burden on the public.

If the mother is not married, the biological father is responsible for providing support. If the mother is married, then the husband is responsible for the child, not the biological father. Only in divorce can the husband cede his parental rights to the child.

Across the nation, states define fathers in different ways. But most states refuse to guarantee biological fathers a role in the lives of children born or conceived during another couple's marriage, said Jeanne M. Hannah, a family attorney in Traverse City.

Even though in recent years biological fathers have pushed to change the law, Quinn knows the law is against him. He is awaiting a ruling from the state court of appeals on whether he has paternal standing because he helped raise his daughter during the first 20 months of her life in Grand Blanc. On the other side is the child's mother, who Quinn says he thought would divorce her husband during their courtship. She didn't.

Quinn says his claim has grown more urgent. This month, the child's mother and her husband, Candace and Adam Beckwith, have been charged with drug trafficking and child endangerment in Kentucky, where they now reside with their other two children.

After Adam Beckwith was arrested in Ohio in July, the children were removed by Ohio courts. In family court proceedings that followed in Kentucky and Ohio, the courts did not recognize Quinn. The children have been placed in the temporary care of Adam's parents.

"I think it's a complete injustice to my daughter," Quinn said.

"I want her back in Daddy's arms. I want her safe."

In an interview on a recent visit to Detroit, Candace Beckwith said that her husband is the only father her daughter recognizes. About the felony charges, she said in a later phone interview: "At this point they're just charges. It doesn't mean we're guilty of any of it."

Bill Numerick Jr. hasn't met his biological son, who is now 6 years old.

The 30-year-old from Traverse City said he conceived the boy with his girlfriend in 2002. By the time he was born, the couple had separated, and the mother married another man.

A Grand Traverse County court concluded in 2003 that since the mother was married at the time of the baby's birth, Numerick had no legal claim. On appeal, Numerick lost.

"There was literally nothing I could have done to guarantee my rights," Numerick said.

His court case, however, caught the attention of lawmakers. One in particular, state Sen. Michelle McManus, eventually introduced a bill that would amend the Paternity Act, allowing a biological father to bring legal claim until his child turns 1 year old.

Other conditions, too, would need to be met, like submitting to the court a positive DNA test and proof that the mother was legally separated from her husband at conception.

The bill was reintroduced in February and is awaiting further action.

The Family Law Council, a section of the State Bar of Michigan, helped draft the latest version of the bill. But its advisers have cautioned that changes should be slow and steady, one representative said.

"The question is, 'How quickly and how dramatically should the law move in changing the status quo?' " asked Kent Weichmann, legislative chairman for the council.

The current law, he noted, protects against biological fathers deciding, for instance, that once their child is a teenager, it's time to come back into the picture and claim parenting rights.

"For a child, that's a pretty devastating thing," Weichmann said. "Part of our concern is as the child grows up, they ought to be able to rely on at least who their parents are."

For this reason, Numerick has stopped trying to see his son. He still mails him presents on his birthday and for Christmas. But recently he stopped including his name.

"I always knew I wasn't going to see him at a certain point," Numerick said. "I don't think it would be appropriate for me to barge in right now. It's such a hard situation."

Man arrested for kicking his wife over child support argument

FORT WALTON BEACH -- A man was arrested Nov. 12 after biting, slapping and kicking his wife during an argument over child support.

The 29-year-old man pushed his wife to the ground and began to "bite, slap and kick" her against her will, according to the Okaloosa County Sheriff's Office arrest report.

Evidence included bite marks on her hand and leg, the deputy noted.

He was charged with battery.

Justice for all

They called this justice when the Court sent me a court date that I never receive and imposed $700 dollars a month in child support payment. I will never forget the first time that I received a rude awakening from the child support Court. It is funny that if a man does not show up to Court that he automatically elected not to come to Court... Although if a woman does not show up to court she did not receive the paper work and they must refile that court date. That is the crap that men face when they stand in front of those judges. I suppose my situation is different than many because I had children by two different women in two different states. So imagine my surprise when one judge said that because we filed first, we get the options on taxing your income that is why your paying $700. Then imagine this, that the second child support case says that because the kids were born first that they automatically get first position to take my money and they took $700 dollars. Did I mention that I only maid $1,600 dollars for that pay period and after taxes I made $2.45... How can they be so cold?

I can not imagine if the court system would have thrown the book at me!

Wrongly Convicted Man Sued for Child Support

Raleigh, N.C. — A man who was pardoned after spending 18 years behind bars for a rape he didn't commit has been sued for child support for the years he was in prison.

Dwayne Allen Dail, 39, was cleared in August of the 1987 rape of a 12-year-old Goldsboro girl. The girl identified him as her attacker, and hair found at the scene was similar to his. DNA evidence found on a fragment of the girl's nightgown years after the trial proved Dail wasn't involved in the attack, however.

Gov. Mike Easley pardoned Dail two weeks ago, making him eligible to receive $360,000 from the state – $20,000 for each year he spent in prison.

Dail, who now lives in Florida, was served Tuesday with a lawsuit by Lorraine Michaels, the mother of his son, who is seeking back child support. The suit does not specify how much money she wants, as is normal in North Carolina, but asks a "reasonable sum for the care and maintenance of the minor child" for the years Dail was in prison.

"Since his release, Mr. Dail has not indicated any intention to provide support to Ms. Michaels," Michaels' attorney, Sarah Heekin, said in a statement. "In order to fully protect my client’s statutory rights, it was necessary to file an action for child support prior to the minor’s eighteenth birthday."

Dail said he was devastated by the suit. He said his son recently moved to Florida to live with him.

"I was thrown in prison. What could I do? I missed my whole life. I missed my son's whole life. I'm not the person to be compensating anyone for anything – not me," Dail said.

"I'm sure the mother had her issues over the years, but nothing like the issues that Dwayne Dail dealt with for 18½ years,” said Chris Mumma, the attorney who helped establish Dail’s innocence.

Heekin, who said she filed the suit last week, works in the same law office as Don Strickland, the former Wayne County assistant district attorney who prosecuted Dail for rape.

You are not the father

man is supposed to take care of his children. If he gets a woman pregnant, he's expected to step up and take responsibility. But what if that man discovers that the child he thought was his own -- the kid he read to, cuddled and tucked in at night -- is another man's? Then who is responsible for the kid -- the biological father or the nurturing adoptive dad? That is the quandary increasingly being raised by DNA tests. As Ruth Padawer writes in a fascinating cover story for the upcoming New York Times Magazine, the rise of paternity tests -- bought on the cheap online or at local drug stores -- have revealed "just how murky society’s notions of fatherhood actually are."

Mike L., the lead subject in Padawer's piece, found evidence of his wife's affair with a coworker and decided to have L., his 5-year-old daughter, take a DNA test. The results arrived in the mail: He was not the father. "I ran upstairs, locked myself in the bathroom and cried and dry-heaved for 45 minutes. I felt like my guts were being ripped out," he says. Mike separated from his wife, Stephanie, and began paying her child support because, he says, she claimed Rob, L.'s bio-dad, had refused. Things continued on this way for several years, until he got news that Stephanie would be marrying Rob, and that was too much to bear. He asked a Pennsylvania court to relieve him of parental responsibility, but a judge ruled that Mike was the legal father, not Rob.

Padawer explains, "Once a man has been deemed a father, either because of marriage or because he has acknowledged paternity (by agreeing to be on the birth certificate, say, or paying child support), most state courts say he cannot then abandon that child -- no matter what a DNA test subsequently reveals," she continues. "In Pennsylvania and many other states, the only way a non-biological father can rebut his legal status as father is if he can prove he was tricked into the role -- a showing of fraud -- and can demonstrate that upon learning the truth, he immediately stopped acting as the child’s father." In Mike's case, the judge ruled that he was the legal father because he stuck around even after the DNA test -- in other words, because of love, not fraud.

"I pay child support to a biologically intact family," Mike says. "How ridiculous is that?" Pretty ridiculous when you consider that Rob gets to live with L. and play the role of papa; and Mike only gets to see her on the weekend. As vexing as this case is, though, we hardly want courts to devalue the unbreakable bond that can develop even in relationships without genetic ties. At some point, DNA can become rather irrelevant. The truth is that Mike's utter adoration of L. jumps off the page; he is a doting, indulgent father. L., now 11 years old, still sees him as her daddy and he wants it to remain that way -- he just doesn't want to pay child support to the woman who cruelly cuckolded and defrauded him. As far as the law is concerned, though, he can't have it both ways. There are many different ideas for how to best address the issue -- from limiting paternity challenges to the first two years of the child's life to widespread DNA testing at birth (I picture Maury Povitch being wheeled from delivery room to delivery room: "You are not the father! You are the father!") -- but all are imperfect.

Paternal uncertainty is one of the many biological inequalities of reproduction (see also: pushing a human being out of your vagina) and, as evolutionary psychologists tell it, getting stuck raising some other schmo's kid is a hard-wired male nightmare. But if you had any doubt that we humans are more than our base evolutionary imperatives, this article should convince you: For all his rightful resentment, men like Mike show that family is thicker than blood.

Eddie Cibrian's Ex Claims He's Stiffing Her Out of Spousal Support

Eddie Cibrian's estranged wife Brandi Glanville wants him to pay her spousal support.

TMZ.com reports that she has filed documents in L.A. County Superior Court claiming that the CSI star, 36, earns $60,000 a week but is only paying for her for "household bills."

Glanville, 36 - mother to Cibrian's sons, Mason, 6, and Jake, 2 - is asking for $39,963 a month in spousal support so she can pay for the kids' schooling and medical bills, among other expenses.

In August, Glanville filed for divorce after eight years, citing irreconcilable differences.

She told Us Weekly she was tired of Cibrian's infidelity. As Us Weekly first reported, he had an affair with now-single LeAnn Rimes while shooting Lifetime original movie Northern Lights, which they filmed last fall.

He recently announced that he plans to sue Life & Style for claiming that he cheated on Rimes, 27. He said the tabloid published a story "filled with inaccuracies and deceitful lies, presumably to titillate sales, but clearly resulting in harm to Eddie Cibrian and others."

Marq Torien was arrested for non child support payments

Marq Torien of the Bulletboys
©Pasco Sheriff's Office

Bulletboys lead singer, Marq Torien, 48, was arrested Friday the 13th in Pasco County, Florida for 'non support of child or spouse' it was reported by the Pasco Sheriff's Office. The Bulletboys, who rose to fame for 5 minutes in the late 80's on the strength of the hit "Smooth Up In Ya," are currently on tour supporting their latest release, 10c Billionaire.

So who were the Bulletboys again? Bulletboys have released six albums to date. Their debut, Bulletboys, has been their most successful, garnering the band a gold record. At best, the Bulletboys were a C-level hair band from their era. A-level...? Think Motley Crue/Poison. B-level...? Think Ratt/Dokken, etc.

The Bulletboys greatest asset and arguably, their biggest achilles heel, has been their uncanny ability to sound strikingly similar to their southern California predecessors, Van Halen. This Van Halen emulation was their calling card. Their ability to almost-sound-not-quite-exactly like the mighty Van Halen was briefly impressive back in 1988.

Now don't get me wrong. I like the Bulletboys. I'd take an early Bulletboys album over the later Van-Hagar era schmaltz any day. But I liken the Bulletboys to leftovers... sometimes I like them, but rarely. Leftovers sound like a good idea at the time, but usually leave you wishing you had something else.

So the lead singer gets busted for back child support? Who cares? Why is this news?

From a marketing, public relations, and promotions perspective, this ‘dead-beat-Dad’ scenario is pure gold for the aging Bulletboys. Question: What better way to revive a music career that barely came alive in the first place? Answer: Get bad press by getting arrested. The scenario is as old as rock-n-roll. Any attention, positive or negative, will move a few more CD's and get a few more folks out to see the live show. You gotta pay the bills right? Well, some of them in this case.

While not as sexy as car crashes and rehab, Torien’s stunt will work just as well. And this has always been the Bulletboys' modus operandi: take what's already worked and do it too. Starting a band in the 80's? Sound like Van Halen? Check. Career in the toilet in '09? Need to get in the news by getting arrested for not paying your baby-mama? Check.

Whether intentional or not, the move is great for business. Look, you’re reading about it now. And that's the point. Who cares if your name is dragged through the mud. This is rock-n-roll. You're back in the black baby! So rock on Bulletboys! You had to do it for the “mean green.”

Two People charged in 5 year old missing

SANFORD, N.C. (AP) — Searchers found the body of a missing 5-year-old off a road Monday, ending a weeklong search for the girl, whose mother was accused of offering her for sex, police said.

Fayetteville Police spokeswoman Theresa Chance told The Associated Press that searchers found Shaniya Davis' body southeast of Sanford in central North Carolina.

Two people have been charged in her disappearance, including her mother, Antoinette Davis, 25. Police charged Davis with human trafficking and felony child abuse, saying Shaniya was offered for prostitution. A first court appearance for Davis was scheduled Monday afternoon, and police said she did not yet have an attorney.

Authorities also charged Mario Andrette McNeill, 29, with kidnapping after they said he was seen in surveillance footage carrying Shaniya at a Sanford hotel. Authorities said McNeill admitted taking the girl, though his attorney said he will plead not guilty.

Davis reported Shaniya missing last Tuesday. The investigation first led to the arrest of a man named Clarence Coe, but charges against him were dropped a day later when investigators tracked down McNeill after getting a tip from a hotel employee.

Additional information led investigators to a search site near Sanford on Sunday. They continued searching Monday, scouring miles of landscape, roads, ravines and fields on four-wheelers and with helicopters.

Syd Severe, 42, who came down from Raleigh to help in the search, said he doesn't believe in the death penalty but feels the culprits in this case deserve it.

"We were hoping that someone could carry her home," Severe said. "It's just sick."

After Shaniya's body was found, a solemn group of searchers met quietly at a nearby fire station to ensure that all volunteers were accounted for.

Her father, Bradley Lockhart, said he raised his daughter for several years but last month decided to let her stay with her mother. He had pleaded for her safe return.

"I should've never let her go over there," he told The Associated Press on Saturday.

Before Shaniya's body was found, he said on CBS's "The Early Show" Monday that he remained hopeful someone would bring his daughter somewhere safe, such as a police station or hospital.

"They can drop her off at Walmart, I don't care," he said.

Thousands of Philadelphia fathers -- and some mothers offered amnesty

The thousands of Philadelphia fathers -- and some mothers -- who have bench warrants for outstanding child support payments, are being offered amnesty from Family Court.

You still have to pay your child support, but Family Court administrative judge Kevin Dougherty (at lectern in photo) says that people with outstanding bench warrants can come in between now and 4pm next Wednesday, November 18th, without fear of being arrested:

"We will in fact withdraw your bench warrant and we will register you for a court hearing so that you can come back into the courthouse and meet your obligations."

Working with Philadelphia fatherhood organizations, Dougherty says, the court will also help those without jobs to find jobs and job training:

"The issue is making sure that the parent that owes that money is obligated to pay for the support of that child, and that Philadelphia Family Court is providing an opportunity for employment -- and possibly long-term employment with benefits -- in these rough economic times."

Dougherty says 5,100 people have bench warrants against them, and they owe a collective $48 million in child support. He says the amnesty runs only until next Wednesday -- after that, and the bench warrants will be enforced once again.

Sandra Bullock Battles for Custody of Kids

Actress Sandra Bullock and her husband Jesse James are facing a fierce custody battle with James' ex-wife Janine Lindemulder. Although Bullock has been helping her husband raise his 5-year-old daughter Sunny while Lindemulder was in prison for tax evasion, the mother is fighting to get her daughter back, claiming Bullock is her biggest obstacle. "What would give her the right to take away my daughter? You know, this is my daughter. I am the best mother I can be," Lindemulder said on 'Good Morning America'.

---

Although Lindemulder was set to regain custody after completing her prison sentence, James went before a judge to determine whether she was a fit mother. According to a court declaration, James asked that Lindemulder prove that she could provide a safe environment for their child that included keeping her away from pornographers, drug addicts, guns and firearms, felons and other unsafe environments. Bullock and James have called Lindemulder and her new husband, also a convicted felon, unfit.

Lindemulder, who has appeared in more than 100 adult films, is perhaps best known because of her association with the punk band Blink 182. She graced the cover of its 1999 album 'Enema of the State' and appeared in two of the band's videos.

In an October 13 letter to the judge presiding over the case obtained by CNN, Lindemulder wrote that she hoped to see her daughter every Saturday, and be more informed of her child's out-of-state travel and any changes in her education. "My daughter and I are both very eager to get back to a normal, healthy, loving life," she wrote.

The court granted Lindemulder visitation rights on Sundays, according to court documents, as long as she kept her daughter away from her new husband -- felon Jeremy Aikman -- and did not consume any drugs or alcohol.

James found himself back in court October 29, saying that Lindemulder violated that October 13 order to ensure Sunny had zero contact with her new spouse, according to Access Hollywood.

To prove that her maternal instincts are sound, Lindemulder is taking her case to the court of public opinion.

In a letter to the judge at Lindemulder's sentencing, Bullock raised concerns about the girl's safety, alleging that the child was left alone during the day while Lindemulder was "asleep from drug use."

"I myself have stopped working like I used to in order to be here with Jesse and the kids because we are on constant high alert," Bullock wrote, "never knowing what condition Janine will be in, and even more concerning, the condition [the girl] will be in."

With Child support doing the best you can is not good enough!

Greg Isaac, center, says he is doing his very best to pay his child support but is having trouble because of the bad economy and lack of jobs (he’s applied for over 50).

PROVIDENCE — One-by-one, day-after-day, the men sheepishly walk to the lectern in Family Court and answer questions about why they can’t possibly make their child-support payments. On a recent morning, Kervin Candelier fumbled through his pants pockets and pulled out a wrinkled receipt from Western Union that suggested he had paid $1,000 in June.

Candelier owed $6,900 in child support payments, and his former girlfriend, the mother of their two children, claimed that he only gave her $500 to pay for school clothes and supplies. He said that he’s doing his best, but he’s a barber and only makes about $230 a week.

“Every business is slow right now because of the economy,” he said.

Magistrate George N. DiMuro, acting on a recommendation from the state Office of Child Support Services, ordered the father to immediately pay a lump sum of $300 and begin paying her $70 a week through the court system. DiMuro tells him to make sure the payments are made through the court, so it’s recorded — not directly to the mother. “Otherwise, you’re going to get yourself in a world of trouble here,” DiMuro warned. There’s no better place to get an understanding of the state’s poor economy than Family Court — the place where divorce, custody, child support and other domestic crises are settled. According to the latest national economic data, Rhode Island’s unemployment rate of 13 percent is the third highest in the nation, trailing only Michigan and Nevada.

Over the course of two days, dozens of men were summoned to courtrooms on the fifth floor of the Garrahy Judicial Complex to answer questions about why they are not making their child-support payments. Many of them also were there to file “motions for relief,” in which they seek to have their payments reduced because they have joined the ranks of the jobless. Candelier stood out because he actually has a job.

DiMuro, the magistrate judge, has seen a surge in the motions for relief over the past eight months. He estimated that there has been a “30 to 40 percent” increase.

DiMuro said that he has been struck by how many of the unemployed fathers once had high-paying professional jobs. They don’t fit the stereotype of a deadbeat dad, someone always looking for ways to avoid supporting his kids.

“These are people who had real good jobs who were paying religiously and they lost their jobs,” DiMuro said. “They are almost embarrassed to be here.”

Based on what he hears and sees in Family Court, DiMuro thinks the state’s unemployment rate is closer to 20 percent.

The state expects the total in child support payments that are funneled through the court system to decline this year. In 2008, court collections totaled $84.5 million; collections through the first nine months of 2009 were at $56.3 million.

With no letup in the recession’s grip on Rhode Island’s economy, state officials do not expect a surge in payments in the final three months.

Anecdotal evidence in court supports their position. Gregory Issac, an unemployed concrete worker, was in court to answer complaints from two different women that he had failed to make child support payments. Issac told DiMuro that he had been to dozens of companies searching for work, but he has had no luck. Court records show that on Sept. 26 he made a $100 payment to the one mother who attended the hearing. .

“Are you satisfied?” DiMuro asked the mother.

“No, I’m not satisfied,” she said.

DiMuro, sensitive to Issac’s financial plight, ordered him to start paying the mother $25 a-week in child support. His case was continued to next month.

The Family Court and Office of Child Support Services try to work with the financially strapped fathers. Unless they have repeatedly refused to support their children, or attempted to conceal their assets, judges are reluctant to send fathers to the Adult Correctional Institutions.

Once jailed, a father not only loses his freedom, but he also loses the opportunity of being gainfully employed and making child support payments.

State figures show that the average child-support payment for a father on public assistance is $262 per month for each child; while the obligations for others is $362 per month.

Sharon A. Santilli, associate director of the state Office of Child Support Services, and Frank DiBiase, chief legal counsel, said that unemployed fathers have to contact the court as quickly as possible and file motions for relief. Too often, they said, the fathers wait several months, thinking that they will land another job so they can resume making payments.

Instead, the fathers fall deeper into debt and then face contempt orders for failing to make child support payments.

Santilli and DiBiase said staff tries to help them find work through the state Department of Labor & Training, and also encourages them to stay in touch with their children, even when they can’t pay. Staff can also find help with parenting skills and treatment for substance abuse.

“Fathers who are involved with their children are more likely to make child-support payments,” Santilli said. “We want to try to work with them.”

Tom Sizemore owes $58,000 in back child support?

Actor Tom Sizemore's ex filed a lawsuit last week according to' TMZ'. The lawsuit filed in L.A. Superior Court states Jinele Mc'Intire was owed more than $58,000 dollars in back support for the couples twin boys that were born in 2005.

Jinele makes her point very clear in the lawsuit stating " Tom Sizemore is a Dead Beat Dad".

Mc'Intire goes on to state due to the actors non-payments she's been forced to live with a friend while having the kids stay with her brother in Texas. She added 'Sizemore' has made no attempt to see them there". Jinele also claims Sizemore last saw the boys when he was filming "Sober House" a show that paid the actor $200,000then going on to film "Celebrity Rehab" which also paid another $200,000 dollars.

Mc'Intire also seeks health insurance and legal fees from Sizemore.

I see this crap everyday, you want to look at the worst case scenario saying the man is a deadbeat, but do we really know the whole story? This astronomical figure came from where? This was his girl friend and they were living together, so that makes it right to call the man a deadbeat? Hey lets face the facts he is a actor and if he is not working how can he make those large child support payments. Hey don't get me wrong, if he is a deadbeat lets place the shoe where it belongs, but before we go casting the first stone, lets look in the mirror first!

Samatha Burke cashes in on her celebrity baby

Jude Law knocked up 24-year-old Samantha Burke during filming of Sherlock Holmes. A paternity test was done to prove it was his. It’s been a month and I don’t think he’s visited his new daughter Sophia yet. But that doesn’t matter. Samantha doesn’t need Jude. She just needs HELLO! Magazine to pay her $300,000 for her illegitimate daughter and monthly child support from daddy. Score! Sigh, sometimes I wish I was born with a uterus. From NYDN:

But Burke and her baby certainly aren’t going to suffer. Celebrity family lawyer Raoul Felder says that the 24-year-old model’s windfall isn’t going to affect her ability to collect child support from Law.

“Child support is fundamentally based on the proportion of the mother’s earnings to the father’s. He makes so much more than she does, that this really won’t affect it. The only court Burke loses in is the one of good taste.”

Samantha should just paint a big green dollar sign on that kid. She’s pretty much the golden goose until he’s 18. I bet if you shake her real hard you can even hear the gold clinking around inside her. She should try it. I have a good feeling about this.