What do you think should be the minimum payment ?

What do you think should be the minimum payment for child support by fathers? If the child does not live with both parents should clothes be at the separate homes. What advice would you give to fathers in regards to the upbringing of their kids in terms of financial, moral and emotional support?


Yolanda: “It should be $100 per week for a child. Sometimes children do have clothes at the other home depending on the type of father. Fathers must look after their children especially if they know they are theirs. They must rally behind their children 100 per cent because the children are their future.”



Anonymous: “I would say $100…Is reasonable. I shall talk for myself because some might not agree. I have a two-year-old son and I give him anything once his mother calls and asks. I never believe that a man should have to end up in courts for child support. If you didn’t want a child, you would not have gone there in the first place. Clothes should be shared at both homes. As a father, play the father’s role and be there at all times. Fathers, they are your children don’t let them go astray and go in gangs.”


Speechless: “I believe about $300. With the rising cost of living, $100 can’t do anything for anybody. Children should have clothes by both parents. Fathers must be aware of the essence of parental care in terms of discipline and financial support. Parental care could be categorised under financial arrangement. Love for your kids is very important too.”


Perry: “I have a daughter, she is one year, seven months, three weeks and six days. I believe there shouldn’t be a minimum, once you have it, give it. Fathers, whatever is yours belongs to your child as well. Yes, I believe that the clothes should be shared. Any shopping for the youth, both mother and father must deal with that responsibility collectively. Make time to see your youth as much as possible, no matter what’s on the agenda, always be there for them. Do not neglect a child because a child feels more of the love when both mother and father are around.”


Zardara Powell: “It should be $200 or at least $150 per week. What can $80 do and life is so hard? Yes, children who live with their moms should have clothes at their father’s place. I would tell the fathers to support their child/ren always”.

The point I think that these people are missing is not how much it cost to raise the child, but how much can the father pay and still support himself...

NEW CHILD SUPPORT LIMITS AS OF JULY 1, 2008

Nevada law places presumptive maximums on the amount of child support a person is obligated to pay. A parent must pay 18% of his/her income for one child and 25% for two children. The amount a person pays, however, is subject to a cap based on the income range the paying parent falls in. In other words, if the applicable percentage of the paying parent's income is more than the cap amount, the paying parent will only be responsible for paying the cap amount. The presumptive cap amounts increased on July 1, 2008. To view the cap amounts click here.

Presumptive Maximum Amounts of Child Support
2008 Schedule
NRS 125B.070
Presumptive Maximum Amounts Increased 4.1% Pursuant to the Consumer Price Index (All Items) Increase in Calendar Year 2007 (December - December) as Published by the U.S. Department of Labor. If you have any questions, please contact Deanna Bjork, Manager of Budgets, (775) 684-1708. (Historical Maximum Amounts (pdf))

PRESUMPTIVE MAXIMUM AMOUNTS OF CHILD SUPPORT (NRS 125B.070)
EFFECTIVE JULY 1,2008 THROUGH JUNE 30,2009 ** REVISED MARCH 20,2008 **
Income Range Presumptive Maximum Amount
If the Parent's Gross Monthly Income is at Least But Less Than The Presumptive Maximum Amount the Parent May be Required to Pay per Month per Child Pursuant to

Paragraph (b) Subsection 1 is
$0 $4,235 $604
$4,235 $6,351 $664
$6,351 $8,467 $726
$8,467 $10,585 $785
$10,585 $12,701 $846
$12,701 $14,816 $906
$14,816 No Limit $968

Note: Issued by the Administrative Office of the Courts April 1 of each year in accordance with the provisions of NRS 125B.070 (3)

Establishing Paternity

The reason that I decided to write about this issue is because of the surge of men paying for children that actually are not their biological children. Surely this could'nt be true, right? The reality is all a woman has to do to establish paternity is to say that the baby is mine. This is were men get the shaft, if the man never receive information that he has to appear in court. Then the court automatically assumes that the man is the father. Of course it just that simple for a woman to go to court and make a claim and establish paternity. Now lets look at the flip side, they start garnishing the guys check talking about child support. He is livid and marches down to Department of Human Services (DHS) asking why is my check being garnished. They politely explain that paternity has been established and he is the father of a boy or girl. Now hold on to your seats and enjoy the ride. The accused is not afforded the opportunity to dispute such a claim without first appearing in court. Even after he makes a claim he then has to pay for a DNA test to prove the child is not his! (Please remember that he is still paying child support)... So the test comes back and proves he is not the father. Now he has to go back to court and show the proof to stop the garnishment. So after the court agree that the child is not mine, I have to wait for the court order to cease garnishing my check... This is the ugly part, all money that is paid to the mother who made the claim she gets to keep! This is food for the thought, you as an accused parent have a window of time to dispute a child being yours, if you don't then you are stuck paying support for the next 18 years...

When is contempt, contempt

Contempt is an act of deliberate disobedience or disregard for the laws, regulations, or decorum of a public authority, such as a court or legislative body. Individuals may be cited for contempt when they disobey an order, fail to comply with a request, tamper with documents, withhold evidence, interrupt proceedings through their actions or words, or otherwise defy a public authority or hold it up to ridicule and disrespect. The laws and rules governing contempt have developed in a piecemeal fashion over time and give wide discretion to judges and legislative leaders in determining both what constitutes contempt and how it is punished.

Contempt of court is a charge which can be laid against someone for interrupting the process of justice in a court of law. A charge of contempt, if proved, can result in fines and jail time. Many people are familiar with the concept of contempt of court, since it tends to come up in courtroom dramas.
There are several different forms of contempt of court. In all cases, they are rooted in the idea that a courtroom and its officers demand respect, both out of common decency and because a court acts as a legal authority. Failure to respect the court can compromise the course of justice, potentially causing a mistrial or compromising the integrity of a trial. As a result, contempt is treated very seriously.

Civil contempt of court involves a failure to obey an order from a court. It can be purged by obeying the order. For example, someone may speak out of turn in a courtroom during trial proceedings, disrespecting the basic rules of the courtroom. The judge can indicate that he or she will find the speaker in contempt of court unless the speaker sits down and remains silent until it is appropriate to talk. Or a witness could fail to answer a question, in which case the judge will instruct him or her to answer or be held in contempt of court.

Criminal contempt of court actually hinders the operations of the court. Examples of criminal contempt include a failure to produce evidence when subpoenaed, or threats to the judge, jury, or lawyers. Someone who yells at the judge, for example, could find him or herself accused of contempt of court.
Contempt of court is also broken up into direct contempt, which takes place in front of a judge, and indirect contempt. In order to prove a charge of contempt of court, it must be proved that the contemnor was aware of the court order or rule which was violated, that he or she was able to comply with the order, and that the contemnor failed to do so. If proved, the sentence for contempt varies, depending on the severity of the crime.

So the point I am making here is, at any given time when a women gets ready and decides not to let a child see his or her father, that is contempt. So when a man does not pay his child support he is held in contempt and threaten with jail time... I don't think that it is fair that a women gets off with a speech about ethics and she know its not right. Then a man will have to go to jail for an infraction of the law...

The Fourteenth Amendment says no man or woman shall be deprive of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So when a woman gets a slap on the hand and the man has to go to jail, isn't that a violation of the fourteenth amendment? You see green is green no matter what shade it is, and contempt is contempt no matter how minor it is... So shall it result in fines and jail time for not only the child support payers but the child visitation deniers!

So speak the words of truth, so that all can witness by...

Britney to pay Kevin $20,000 a month child support

Kevin Federline will receive $20,000 a month from ex-wife Britney Spears for looking after their two children. Federline won sole custody of the children, Sean Preston and Jayden James this past week.Britney was granted two visits and one overnight stay each week, and she may also be granted an additional overnight stay by the end of the year.

Did any one know she was raking it in like that? I mean thats Puff Daddy Child support payments...

Should incarcerated men have to Pay Child Support from Jail?

Here's another idiotic aspect of the child support system--demanding that incarcerated obligors continue to make child support payments even though we know they have no income and no ability to pay. Then, when they're released, they're several thousand dollars behind on child support (with interest on overdue payments added), and are subject to arrest or driven underground.This problem has now been recognized by the Justice Department and Hillary Clinton actually addressed it during her campaign but the issue is that regardless of the fact the man is incarcerated for one crime and literally being punished because he can not pay child support. Usually the above scenario applies to low-income minority men incarcerated as part of the asinine War on Drugs. In the case below, the charges are far more serious--murder. Nonetheless, it is still stupid and unfair to continue the man's child support obligation. If he's convicted, he'll be in jail the rest of his life, so the obligation is irrelevant--it'll never be paid. If he's acquitted, then he'll be behind on child support when he's released, with all the concomitant problems, even though he is legally blameless. So the minute that the man or woman is incarcerated the debt should either be picked up by the state or waived. To expect a man that has been incarcerated for 3 or more years to immediately start paying on a debt that has been accumulating over years is not fair to the man woman or child... Something has to be done with the inmate in mind, or he will always be caught in the system.

Woman Faces Charges for Failing to Pay Child Support

This week, a New Hampshire woman was sentenced to a charge for felony non-support. Samantha Bilodeau, of Manchester, admitted in court that she owed nearly $19,000 in unpaid child support and was sentenced to two to four years in prison. The sentence has been suspended for five years, excluding just over 200 days of time served. Bilodeau will serve five years of probation under the supervision of child support services.
Bilodeau’s arrest is one of many new cases of wives failing to pay child support to their former husbands.

The Michigan Child Support Formula

This is a complex formula. Among other factors, it takes into account:
The incomes of both parents
The number of children living with each parent
The number of tax exemptions each parent claims
Day care expenses
Health insurance premiums
In a traditional arrangement, the children live with one parent and visit with the other according to a schedule. The non-custodial parent pays child support.
The payer's support obligation can be much lower under the shared economic resources formula. That applies if the children spend at least 128 overnights per year with the payer of support.
This is only the tip of the iceberg. There are many rules and regulations that can affect the amount of child support. For example, if one parent is unemployed, then a level of income can be imputed to them based on their training, recent job experience, whether they quit or got fired, etc.

Health Insurance
Normally, both parents are required to provide health insurance for the children if it is available at a reasonable cost as a benefit of employment.
Both parents are often required to contribute to the cost of insuring the children, and uninsured health-care costs, according to their relative incomes.

Child Care (Day Care)
Both parents are often required to contribute to child care costs, again according to their relative incomes.

Life Insurance
Often, one or both parents agree to maintain a life insurance policy for the children until they turn 18. Michigan law does not require such a policy, but it can be a good idea to demand (or bargain for) it during a divorce, custody, support or paternity case. If the other parent dies before your children turn 18, this could help you support them.
This web site is only for informational purposes. It is not legal advice and does not form an attorney-client relationship. Talk to a qualified family law attorney for legal advice regarding your unique situation.

Laws may up child support

New child support laws passed this year by the Louisiana Legislature could mean an increase in the financial commitment paying parents make to their children.
State lawmakers debated more than a dozen bills relating to the management of children after their parents break up. Nine were approved by the legislators and ended up on the governor’s desk.
“Child support has a very significant impact on people today,” Robbie Endris, executive director of the Department of Social Services’ Support Enforcement Services Division.
It is typical during a nonfiscal regular session, which is every other year, for lawmakers to push a number of changes to the laws governing child support, she said.
One of the bills that made it into law allows judges to add special expenses for camps, music lessons and sports to child-support obligations.
Tamithia Shaw, co-chair of the child-support guidelines review committee, which recommended the legislation as part of its quadrennial report this year, said her committee found that after a divorce, the noncustodial parent is less willing to pay for activities.
Judges already had the discretion to add support for extra activities, but they felt reluctant to do so, she said.
“They didn’t feel they had the right to add that,” Shaw said.
“We’re really trying to address those situations where they refuse to pay anything,” said state Rep. Joseph Lopinto, R-Metairie and sponsor of House Bill 339.
As it was being considered in the Legislature, some senators argued the bill could create an excessive financial burden on those paying child support.
Lopinto said judges still get discretion in determining what a reasonable request is to provide support.
HB339 also gives the court the option, in cases where the monthly income of the parent exceeds $30,000, to place a portion of the obligation in a trust for the child.
Lopinto said some people, like professional athletes, get large incomes for a short amount of time. When they no longer have that income, their child support obligation drops, he said.
During the time they are making income that exceeds the child support schedule, judges can put the money in a trust for the child, he said.
“It just provides a little safety net now for the child,” Endris said.
The child-support schedule, which is used to determine how much a parent will pay based on their income, was expanded by another measure signed into law to include monthly combined income between $20,000 of $30,000. It also updated the payment amounts for monthly incomes starting at $2,250.
Shaw said the current schedule was based on economic data from 1972.
Judges were allowed to use their discretion to set child support payments for incomes that exceeded the schedule, but the law now allows for greater consistency, Shaw said.
One Senate bill held up in committee would have allowed for adjustments to child support payments for parents with children in more than one family. The measure was not part of the Department of Social Service’s agenda but was recommended by the Louisiana State Law Institute.
State Sen. Derrick Shepherd, D-Marrero, sponsor of Senate Bill 605, said the measure is needed to eliminate the “race to the courthouse” that current law allows.
For example, a man has children with two women. Whichever mother files for child support first, the court uses the father’s income at that point to calculate the child support payment.
Then, if the other mother files for child support, the father’s now-diminished income will be used to calculate that child support payment.
So, whoever files for child support first gets the largest payment, Shepherd said.
One measure that attracted attention but failed to pass was House Bill 341 by state Rep. Robert Johnson, D-Marksville. The measure would have clarified how to determine income for parents who are self-employed.
“Not every person who is self-employed is trying to conceal income,” Shaw said. “But when you do have someone conceal, it’s usually in those cases.”
HB341 as it was originally written was not controversial, having not received a single “no” vote. But a hot button amendment was tacked on HB341 late in the session and the measure died.

The controversial amendment started out as Senate Bill 110, which passed the Senate but was voted down by a House committee on May 28. The bill’s wording was then tacked onto HB341.
The amendment would have allowed the state Department of Social Services to seize casino winnings to pay past-due child support.
Endris said this is the third time the Legislature has considered some type of gambling interception bill. More states are passing similar bills, and it’s something the federal government is considering too, she said.
“It will certainly be coming back again,” Endris said. “If the parent’s a winner, the children should be winners, too.”

DNA PROVED DIFFERENT

Seven children call Terress Sims “Daddy” but for nearly 11 years one other child’s mother says he’s responsible for an 8th. He says he’s not.
“If I claim all these kids, which is a good number for children, why should I be denying one,” asked Sims.
He says the SC Department of Social Services told him he’d have to pay for the DNA test to prove he wasn’t the Daddy. “I was like I can’t afford it one right now and they told me basically they made me well they’re like you got to pay until you can afford one,” said Sims.
So he was ordered to pay thousands in child support but says he finally stopped for good when the girl started to not look like him. When we asked Sims if he took care of this child thinking it was his he replied, “No, I wasn’t. I wasn’t thinking it was mine. I was paying because they made me, otherwise I’d go to jail.”
And when he didn’t pay he was sentenced to 6 months in jail.
“I went to jail later on in the year,” said Sims. “I went to jail twice.”
Family court documents we obtained showed in May of this year he had a genetic test showing he wasn’t the father but DSS required an additional test.
How could that not be good enough? DSS wouldn’t answer that question citing confidentiality but claims they would never force someone to front the money to have a DNA test done.
“We will go ahead and have the tests done,” said DSS Director of Child Support Enforcement Larry McKeown. “If the individual is excluded there is no cost. If the individual is found to be the father than we would ask the court to have the individual reimburse us.”
Not true says Mr. Sims who lost more than just money he lost his freedom.
“That’s time away from your life you can’t get back,” Sims said.
Family court tell us from here Mr. Sims will be able to ask DSS to schedule another hearing to see if he can get his money back. That’s up to the judge. 7 On Your Side will continue to follow his case and let you know what happens.
For more information about disputing child support enforcement claims and starting a case with DSS call 864-282-4650 or click here. You have to watch this to believe this clip to believe it. http://www.wspa.com/spa/news/local/article/man_says_dna_tests_prove_baby_isnt_his/5783/

Protecting yourself from paternity fraud

Paternity fraud is the act of falsely naming a man to be the biological father of a child, particularly for the purpose of collecting child financial support , by the mother when she knows or suspects that he is not the biological father.

In cases of paternity fraud, there are many potential victims: the defrauded man, the child deprived of a relationship with his/her biological father, the biological father who is deprived of his relationship with his child. Subsidiary victims include the defrauded child's and the men's families. In particular, financial hardship may have resulted for the defrauded man's children and spouse in cases in which the man made child support payments for the unrelated child.
In some jurisdictions in some countries, there is limited opportunity to legally challenge the assumption of paternity.

If you choose to do so you can request DNA tests for you and the children. Expect to pay upward of $400 for the testing, but if you believe a child is not your biological, it's a worthwhile expense. Your goal is to avoid becoming a victim of "Paternity Fraud." Monetary gain is generally the reason that most women lie about the children biolocial parent. Most men will be on the hook for 18 or more years of child support for a child or children who aren't yours. The bad news is that paternity fraud is not uncommon. If the DNA tests show that you're not the father, you need to get a lawyer and challenge paternity. Depending on where you live, you'll typically have six to 24 months to do so. Forbidding men to challenge paternity, especially in the context of marriage, by limiting the amount of time allowed to challenge paternity, or by allowing women to make a claim paternity without adequate chance for rebuttal by the alleged father. Such is the case in state of California U.S.A.. In some jurisdictions, the husband of the mother of a child is held to be the father, regardless of biological relationship. Access to such testing is restricted in some jurisdictions as it is held to not be in the best interests of the child for such information to become available. A man finding out that the child is not his biological child contrary to information supplied by the mother may result in his rejection of the child or mother.

One man received a bill for $75,000 in back child support. That came a quite a surprise, since he didn't think he had any children. He tracked down his ex-girlfriend and his child and got a paternity test, which proved conclusively that he was not the father. But because he hadn't challenged paternity soon enough he was still held responsible for the arrears. In another case, a dad found 18 months after his divorce that the child he'd been paying support for was not his. The mother admitted she lied about the child's paternity, but because the deadline to challenge had passed, dad'll be paying $1,200/month for the next 15 years - more than $200,000! Unfortunately, even challenging paternity within the window doesn't guarantee that you'll avoid being defrauded. In many states, when a child is born during a marriage, the husband is presumed to be the father - biology is irrelevant. So even if DNA shows that he's not the father, he'll still owe child support. Why are the courts making men pay for children who aren't theirs, whom they may never have met or known about or have no legal rights to see? Unfortunately, it's big business. Many states receive government funds for every child support claim they issue, and they may take a percentage of money collected - often to the tune of tens of millions of dollars per year. The big complication here is that you undoubtedly love your son and you may decide that you want to claim him as your own regardless of what a paternity test might show.

Unfortunately this is very common behavior in women. Collectin child support is one thing but collecting child support should be a crime, a felony. This would at least stop women claiming a man is the father and he is not. Then restitution should be paid for all the money that was paid to that woman with interest. That should be the next bill that should pass as law!

Locking men up for not paying child support

I don't believe that Locking men up for not paying child support is the answer. Once a child is born it is the obligation of the mother and father is to raise that child and take care of him or her. Treating a man or woman like a common criminal because they can not afford to pay child support is not the answer.You not only ruin the father’s life but the child as well. The point is not to figure how to lock him or her up, but how to make them contribute to the cause. So many programs could be initiated that would help although if a work release programs could be implemented it would be a resolution to one big problem. 1st he pays child support and he would pay fees to remain in the program. Most important to stay in the program he has to participate in the child’s life. This could be a simple answer to a big problem. We just need a open mind to make it work.

Child support unit movingBy

The child support unit in District Attorney Larry Moore’s office is planning a move in the near future that will create some relief for workers, which should translate to better services for customers.
According to Jennifer Gourd, who works in Moore’s child support office, the basic purpose of the child support office is currently limited by physical space restrictions in the courthouse.
“Our main function is establishing and enforcing child support,” she said. “We currently have more than 5,000 cases open. There are 11 people on staff, but there are supposed to be 16. Right now, we don’t have the space, and we are in very cramped quarters. Moving to a new facility will allow us a better ratio of caseworkers to cases.”
Remodeling of a structure to house the child support office at Denison and Main streets is under way. It will be in a section of adjoined business named Bodega Bay by the property owner.
Gourd provided some explanation of duties assigned to the child support unit.
“The program was created in 1975 for welfare recovery,” she said. “One thing we do is establish support orders; the custodial parent can name the father, who can come to court and acknowledge he is the parent or request a DNA test.”
Gourd listed several other responsibilities the unit handles.
“We also enforce existing orders, and we’re also charged with collecting Temporary Assistance to Needy Families,” she said. “We enforce payment for foster care from the biological parents, we enforce medical support, we can enforce support alimony, and we can enforce child support orders issued in other states.”
Moore said the new facility, which may be ready in August or September, is more than twice the size of the current space.
He explained the importance of having good child support services, which are offered free of charge to the custodial parent.
“The child support division statewide is for whichever parent has custody, and it enables them to better collect child support,” he said.
Moore said the majority of cases involve mothers trying to collect support they are owed.
“These are cases where paternity has been an issue, or the paying parent gets behind on payment or will not pay,” he said. “It is a service.”
Moore added that the new facility also will have room for expansion.

Video: Ex-Heavyweight Champ Holyfield in Court for Back Child-Support

Ex-Heavyweight Champ Holyfield in Court for Back Child-Support



A woman wants thousands of dollars in back child-support from former heavyweight champion, Evander Holyfield or else.The woman asked a Fayette County judge to throw the champ in jail if the debts aren’t paid.

Irvin said she was trying to protect the 10 year-old son she shares with Holyfield. Irvin said the child doesn't medical insurance has been informed that he must leave private school. Irvin said her home may soon be in foreclosure.Holyfield dominated the boxing ring, but Thursday, he was in a very public battle with one of the mothers of his children.Irvin said, while Holyfield lives lavishly in a $10 million Fairburn estate complete with a movie theater, lap pool and bowling alley, she and one of the Holyfield's sons are just days away from foreclosure.Irvin's attorney said Holyfield is three months behind in child support to the tune of $9,000. According to a court document filed in Fayette County Wednesday, Holyfield is not in compliance with a 1999 Child Support Agreement. In it, Irvin said the Holyfield agreed to provide health insurance, private school and a college and grad school tuition trust. She claims he's in violation of all three. Irvin's family law attorney is now asking a judge to jail the Holyfield if he doesn't cough up the money.

Unfortunately Holyfield income has changed and he is in a bankrupt status, and because is his income has drastically been reduced because he is not boxing he should not have to pay $3,000 a month. Its obvious that he was paying support but there has been a impact change in his life, no big pay days. Is putting a man in jail because he can not afford to pay child support really in the best interest of the child?

Changes in child support to begin

The biggest overhaul of the child support system for separated parents in more than two decades will come into effect on Tuesday.
The federal government says while a few parents will have to pay more in child support to former partners, most would not be greatly affected.
The most significant change is the way payments will be calculated for around 1.5 million separated and divorced parents nationwide.
The federal government says the new formula aims to share the costs of raising children more fairly and replaces a 20-year-old mathematical calculation.
It treats both parents incomes equally and takes into account the amount of care each parent provides.
Previously a parent had to give more than 30 per cent of care before there was a reduction in payment to the primary care giver.
The formula also treats the cost of raising children from first and second families equally.
It also takes into account additional incomes, such as pensions and salary sacrifice, when calculating payments.
Child Support Agency (CSA) acting general manager Trevor Sutton said only a small number of people would see significant changes in their payments.
"For the vast majority of people the changes won't be huge in terms of dollar losses or gains," Mr Sutton told AAP.
"But some parents will be upset and it is understandable, but our main message is for people to contact us and talk about the changes so we can properly explain them."
Human Services Minister Joe Ludwig said the new formula was based on the cost of raising children today.
"There have been considerable changes to Australian society since the Child Support Scheme was created 20 years ago," Senator Ludwig said in a statement.
Other changes to the system include measures to crack down on suspected child support cheats.
As of Tuesday, CSA will have the ability to employ private investigators to spy on suspected offenders.
The measure, announced by the federal government last week, is designed to help the CSA collect debts of $1 billion.
Senator Ludwig said the new scheme "aims to meet the best interests of children, reduce conflict between parents and ensure child support is paid in full and on time".
Parents can view detailed information about the new scheme on the CSA website www.csa.gov.au/schemereforms.

Man $120,000 behind in child support gets 9-year sentence in South Bend

Charles Gillam was ordered by a St. Joseph Circuit Court to serve 9 years in prison for not paying more than $120,000 of in child support.
SOUTH BEND — A 34-year-old South Bend man was sentenced to serve nine years in prison for not paying child support.
Charles Gillam also was ordered by a St. Joseph Circuit Court magistrate to be placed on probation for 15 years upon his release from prison.
He was more than $120,000 in arrears as of Jan. 31, according to a news release from the St. Joseph County prosecutor’s office.
Gillam pleaded guilty in 2007 to three counts of non-support of a dependent child, a Class C felony.

I understand the need to enforce child support payments, but a class c felony? So the 9 years that he is locked up he can not pay, is his obligation still in effect? If so then the man is set up to fail, right? If he is at $120,000 now when he is released he will owe even more right? If locked up more than 3 times for same offense, does the 3 strike rule fall in effect?

Is there anything I can do about my ex neglecting his visitation rights?

My ex and I have a 4 year old daughter and a 2 year old son together. Our divorce states that he is to pay child support and have the children every other weekend and on certain holidays. He pays child support, but he refuses to take the children every other weekend. Instead, he goes four to five months without seeing them and then drops by on one of his weekends and takes them. This is starting to cause emotional problems with both of them. Our daughter has always been extremely close to him. She wants to see him and gets really excited about going to his house and spending time with him. However, he is full of empty promises to come and get her and she is broken hearted every time he doesn't show up. It also really affects her when he shows up out of nowhere, takes her with him on Friday, and then walks right back out of her life on Sunday. She always wants to know why he never came back to get her and why she can't go and see him. I do my best to explain things to her without putting him down and making her feel worse, but a few months later he'll pop right back into her life and confuse her again.As for our son, his father is almost like a stranger to him. He only saw him twice for the first 6 months of his life. When my ex drops by for his visit with them every 4-5 months, our son does not want to go with him. He cries when they leave and cries for the entire weekend. I don't want to make him go, but he is paying child support and I have no choice.This can't be healthy for our children. In my opinion, being a father is an all or nothing job. I think he should take his visits as he is supposed to or just sign over all rights to me. I realize I would lose child support if he signed over all rights, but I have to do what is best for them. I don't want him to walk out of their life forever, but I have to wonder if that could be any worse than what they are going through now. Is there anything I can do to force him to take his visitation with them or sign over rights if he doesn't? I live in Alabama if that helps on any state laws.I am sorry for such a long post, but I really need some advice on this. It is breaking my heart to see my babies so upset when there is nothing I can do to make it better! Thanks for taking the time to read this and thanks in advance for any advice you can offer.

answer: What's best for the kids is to keep their dad in their life as much as possible. Kids will follow your attitude on this, so if you stay positive then you're doing your kids a big favor. When your kids are older, they will figure things out for themselves and if dad is still a flake when they are teenagers, they'll probably refuse to see him when they are old enough to make that choice. Until then, change your attitude and teach them some coping skills. You can set the expectations so there's less disappointment if he doesn't show up. You can have a Plan B -- something else to do that's just as fun -- if he doesn't show up. It will also help to keep your personal feelings on the matter to yourself when your children are present or within ear shot. If they hear you speaking poorly of their father, it will influence how they feel and they will remember it when they are older. So take the high road. As far as dealing with your ex, I'd take extra measures to call him during the week to remind him when it's time for visitation. It's not ideal and it's sad that you need to do it, but it sounds like he needs the extra push to put his kids at the top of his agenda. But if you take a positive attitude with him and remind him how much the children need their father and how much you appreciate him when he is involved with the children -- you might be able to work through this without going to court or escalating the situation. Your end goal is to get him to understand he is needed and his children are number one. You don't need a judge for that. You need tons of patience and a loving, supportive attitude. People do change. Someday he will probably thank you for not allowing him to walk out on those kids. And someday your kids will thank you for doing all you could to keep dad involved. Good luck. You have your work cut out for you.

Man must pay support for child who's not his

Men can be legally responsible even if they aren't father


Alexis Lisenbee, 51, rummaged through records concerning his child support cases on Tuesday afternoon.

Lisenbee has been in the child support system since the 1970s, when he was a young man and began paying for a child he said he did not father.
"I told them the child wasn't mine," Lisenbee said. "I was told to sign the papers to pay for the child support or go to jail."
Lisenbee said he was "naively" tricked into signing and now owes thousands of dollars in back-pay child support for the woman who is now fully grown and 28 years old.
Lisenbee paid $450 for a DNA paternity test issued by Paternity Testing Corporation in November. The test confirmed the woman is not his child. He still pays child support.
Although Tennessee has to prove a man's fatherhood, the state doesn't have to disprove paternity in child support cases, said Tanya Jones, child support administrator. If a man signs an acknowledgement or birth certificate, for example, no other proof is required.
Jones declined to discuss Lisenbee's case but shared her expertise on paternity law.
If a man acknowledges he is the father at a child's birth, for example, then years later uses a DNA test to prove he isn't the father, the state isn't liable to pay him back, she said. Even with a DNA test, court action is required to stop a child support order.
"A judicial action to disestablish paternity of a child can, however, be initiated by the legal father by obtaining a DNA test by an accredited testing laboratory that would be admissible under state law and the Tennessee Rules of Evidence," Jones said. "If the test confirms that the man is not the father, the court may then disestablish that man as the legal father of the child.
"The court could prospectively order that further child support would not be owed for the child by that man," Jones continued. "The law provides that the state is not liable for repayment of money paid previously as child support if the court disestablishes paternity that was established by court order or voluntary acknowledgment."
Lisenbee had his DNA test results notarized and mailed to the child support office in Clarksville. He hasn't received a response and is still making child support payments (for three children, two he claims aren't his) from his disability check, he said.
Lisenbee is outraged he is forced to pay for a child he has proven isn't his. He feels he is being wronged.
Court action
Lisenbee thinks the state is obligated to repay him or, at least, stop forcing him to pay for the woman he's proven isn't his child.
Jones said something can be done.
"In certain instances that a person who was determined to be the legal father of a child by way of a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity can have that determination overturned by court action if fraud, duress or material mistake of fact at the time of execution of the acknowledgment can be shown."
Lisenbee said he feels "railroaded" because he has the proof and nothing is being done in his behalf, he said.
"I've been told to go to court, get an attorney to prove the kids aren't mine," Lisenbee said. "They are wrong, and they know they are wrong. They need to overturn this and pay me every cent back. Why should I be forced to pay thousands of dollars for an attorney when the paperwork says it all."
2 other children
Lisenbee also pays child support for two other children, an 18-year-old girl he said is his and a 13-year-old boy he claims isn't. He loves them both dearly, he said.
In 1995, a woman had a son, and Lisenbee thought the child was his. He signed the birth certificate and later began child support payments.
When the child became sick and needed surgery, Lisenbee said he found out he could not give blood to the boy. He then doubted the boy was his. The boy receives monthly payments from Lisenbee.
The $747 disability check Lisenbee receives from the Social Security Administration is reduced to $260 after child support, according to Social Security records.
Lisenbee plans to get a DNA test to prove the boy isn't his.
Paternity laws
Jones said a man can become a legal father in child support cases through the following routes:
By paternity order made by a judge.
By paternity acknowledgement signed in the hospital at birth.
By being named in the birth certificate or an affidavit signed by the father and mother if they're unmarried.
A judge can hand down a paternity order if the father is not present and the judge by default finds the man is the child's father.
Lisenbee said he was never given a blood or DNA test by the Child Support Division for any of the children he pays for. He said he's lived in another state and has been in the military and never attended a paternity hearing. He thinks he has been deemed father by default.

Hip-Hop Mogul Russell Simmons Sets It Straight On Child Support Ruling

In a letter addressed to critics, hip-hop music mogul Russell Simmons, 50, defended a child support ruling that was filed Tuesday in Los Angeles Superior Court involving the hip-hop mogul and his ex-wife Kimora Lee Simmons, 33, and their two daughters Ming Lee, 8, and Aoki Lee, 5. Simmons set the record straight regarding the amount of child support he pays and why he's glad to pay it. In the statement, Simmons stated the following: Friends of mine have forwarded me gossip online about my custody agreement details with Kimora. The fact is, we’ve had a pretty good partnership at sharing the girls in the past. There have been a few bumps in the road, and those bumps have led us to negotiate a minimum amount of time I’m guaranteed to see my kids. That deal is as follows: I have the girls one full week out of every eight, half of the summer, half of all the holidays, a full week at Christmas, and half of Spring Break. Like in all good partnerships, contracts are meant to protect the partners but are usually not the only way the partners work together. If I show up in L.A., where she now lives, unannounced, I can call up Kimora and she will most likely send them right over. The same goes for when she comes to New York. We have always had a school in New York and a school with the same curriculum in L.A., so when the girls are with me in New York, we can spend quality time together. I can get up with them, take them to school and just be together. Kimora consults with me about doctors or schools for the girls, but she’s always had final say in those areas. If we had an argument about a school, guess who’s going to win? But there are other stipulations in our agreement where we have to make final decisions together. Anything having to do with business decisions pertaining to my kids cannot be done without my consent. I’ve also seen a lot about people reading into the supervised visits stipulation. Kimora travels with a security guard and a nanny. In the past, she’s gotten really nervous that I never travel with security, so if it makes her more comfortable to have her security and a nanny with us when I’m with my kids, that’s OK with me. Finally, I want to say Kimora is a excellent mother and is doing a great job with them. My kids are studying a couple of foreign languages, they travel around the world, they practice yoga, ballet, swimming, karate and piano, among other things...sometimes I think they do too much, but I trust in Kimora on this because she IS a good mother. Regarding the money, my kids live a tremendous life. They do have lots of security, nannies, educators, special programs, travel, chefs, on and on. Their mother manages all of those luxuries and I’m happy to provide for that. With great love all things are possible. Russell Simmons -- The ruling made on Tuesday granted Kimora Lee, sole custody of their two young daughters, while allowing Simmons one week of visitation out of every eight weeks and extra time for summer vacations and holidays. Russell Simmons will be paying $20K a month per child which reportedly stops at the age of 19 1/2 or when they are married, becomes financially independent, emancipated, stops living with their mother or joins the armed forces. In addition, Simmons will allegedly also buy or lease a car for his two daughters in the amount of $60K or more, once every 24 months. When Kimora Lee Simmons filed for divorce from Russell in March, the CEO of the Baby Phat clothing line, reportedly cited irreconcilable differences. The two have been married for almost 10 years. In other news, Kimora Lee Simmons alleged has stated that she is "kind of" engaged to her now boyfriend, actor Djimon Hounsou. The two have been reportedly dating for several months and Kimora stated that she wasn't actually looking for romance when she met the actor back on last February.

CHRIS TUCKER has to pay child support

April 24, 2008. MediaTakeOut.com has learned that actor Chris Tucker has some baby mama's drama. According to the National Enquirer, Chris has been ordered to pay child support for a Los Angeles woman's child.Here's what they're reporting:
The 35-year-old Rush Hour star has been ordered to pay child support, but Chris insists he's never met the mother, doesn't know anything about a baby and has never seen the support order.Gail Webb - who identified her baby as Krista Jane Webb Tucker in court papers - told the Enquirer she dated the comedian a couple of years, but that he vanished when she told him she was pregnant.But here's the best part of the story - Chris only has to pay $254.00 a month. Damn I pay more than that for my child and have not made a million yet!

What if Kimora made more money

Hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons’ wife, Kimora Lee Simmons, will receive $480,000 in child support each year for their two daughters. After nine years of marriage Russell Simmons and Kimora Lee divorced this year. Kimora Lee, 33, filled for divorce earlier this year, citing irreconcilable differences, and asked for primary custody of the kids, Ming Lee, now 8, and Aoki, now 5. She is also asking that Russell, 50, be granted “reasonable child visitation… accompanied at all times by the children’s nanny and security personnel.” There were rumours that the couple had split some time before, but still lived together. The monthly checks will come until 2019 for Ming Lee (born January 21, 2000) and 2022 for 5-year-old Aoki (born August 16, 2002). Both kids model for Baby Path Kids Collection. Kimora Lee, a former model, is CEO of the Baby Phat fashion house. According to the agreement filed Tuesday in Los Angeles Superior Court, rap mogul Russel Simmons will have to dish out a total of $480,000 in child support each year. Now this is possible that Kimora can easily earn a million plus a year with her TV show and being CEO of her company. Is it fair that she receives tax free income making her net income much higher. Receiving $480,000 tax free is like making close to 1 million dollars a year. So if she makes 2 million a year will their be a reduction in child support? The key is not paying but providing a lifestyle. Is it fair for women through the aid of child support to make more money than the man paying support?

Gambling winnings will be taken for unpaid support

For Colorado gamblers who owe child support, those "Wahoos!" and fist pumps that come with a big jackpot will soon be cut short with a string of expletives or a big "D'oh!" Beginning Tuesday, people delinquent with their child support payments will have their debt taken from any big winnings in state casinos and racetracks. Their names will be checked against a database at the cashier's cage, and the amount owed to their children will be withheld on the spot. The casino or racetrack then has 24 hours to submit the intercepted money to the Department of Human Services through an online system developed for the program. "I do expect that it will increase collections," said Laura Davidson, senior site manager for Policy Studies Inc., a company that collects delinquent child support under contract with the El Paso County Department of Human Services. El Paso County received more than 18,000 delinquency cases last year; Davidson's office collected nearly $40 million, the most in the state. Colorado currently suspends driver's licenses and hunting and fishing licenses for people who don't pay their child support. It also intercepts lottery winnings. But Davidson predicts gambling winnings will occur more frequently than lottery winnings, given the popularity of gambling and racetracks as entertainment. The law was sponsored by Rep. Joel Judd, D-Denver, who has tried unsuccessfully to pass similar measures since coming to the statehouse in 2003. He said casinos and tracks opposed the measure because they didn't want to be responsible for withholding winnings for customers they're trying to make happy. Judd said the idea came to him years ago while he practiced law. A client was robbed of more than $175,000. Although the woman who stole from the client was convicted, restitution never came. One day Judd received a call that the woman won $5,000 in Black Hawk. He rushed to have the money seized, but by then it was already spent. "I thought there ought to be a law. There ought to be a way to deal with that," he said. The program was established through the Colorado Department of Revenue and cost about $16,000 to set up, said spokesman Mark Couch. Winnings will be collected when they reach levels that would require the Internal Revenue Service to issue withholding forms - about $1,200 for slot machines and $600 for poker or parimutuel, or betting pools. Child support is established by a complex formula that considers income, visitations, employment and a host of other factors, Davidson said. The state operated Family Support Registry is a clearinghouse for payments and is used to identify people who stop paying or never start. Davidson said there are almost as many excuses as cases, but recurring ones include a lack of income or not getting to visit the children.

I think that this is great, although I have a problem: if he or she hits the lottery can the mother go and claim that since the father hit the lottery that the child should hit it as well? What if the person has been faithfully paying child support and that happens is it right for the mother to try and cash in on his winnings?

Russel Simmons order to pay child support

Russell Simmons is ordered tp pay 20 thousand a month for each child. Paying $40,000 a month equals $480K a year.In Child Support
June 26, 2008 ·
Simmons must pay this until 2019 for Ming Lee and 2022 for Aoki. That is absolutely unbelievable money...

Bill to increase child support fees little opposition from legislators

In addition to cost-of-living expenses, extra child support payments could be required for activities like sports and music lessons if House Bill 339 is approved in by the state legislature.
House Bill 339 by state Rep. Joseph Lopinto, R-Metairie, allows judges the right to order additional payments for children’s extracurricular activities.
State Sen. Nick Gautreaux, D-Meaux, was able to piggyback legislation to redirect gambling winnings to pay for overdue child support.
Some senators fear the bill could place too much of a financial burden on those paying child support.
“The intent of the bill is good – very good,” state Sen. Jody Amedee, D-Gonzales said. “But I don’t think we need to keep adding and adding and adding.”
State Sen. Julie Quinn, R-Metairie, said the legislation is important to ensure that children of divorced parents who want to participate in extracurricular activities are not penalized.
Members of the Louisiana group promoting shared parenting and fair child support laws in Louisiana, LaDads, oppose the bill, citing many reasons.
In a letter to the state Senate, LaDads member Robert D. Black, Jr. asked senators to vote against the bill.
“I am all for extra events, camps, etc … but if someone couldn’t afford them while they were married, how is he or she going to afford them when they are divorced?” wrote Black.
“Plus, what guarantees do you have in place that even if these events are paid for that the mother will actually take [the child] the events or even [that the extra child support] is spent on those events to begin with?” asked Black in his letter to the Senate.
Black also pointed out the lack of accountability for funds already being paid for child support by divorced parents.
In his own letter to the state Senate, LaDads president Nicholas James referred to current Louisiana child support laws that he said allow a judge to order a parent to pay child support exceeding 100 percent of his or her gross income.
“Now, instead of seeking to correct these problems, the Legislature actually seeks to make them worse by adding on yet another way for a judge to make an order exceeding 100 percent of a person’s gross income,” James wrote.
HB 339 was approved by the Senate 23-12. The bill previously breezed through the House without a single opposing vote but must go back to the House for final amendment concurrence.

Man picks prison over paying support

Carl H. Burrows, 32, of Deposit, was arraigned on a sealed indictment in Delaware County Court on June 9.
Burrows pleaded guilty to a felony count of first-degree nonsupport of a child, and Delaware County Judge Carl Becker sentenced Burrows to one-to-three years in prison.
"(Burrows) was adamant that he wasn't going to pay," Vredenburgh said.
The case is the first felony prosecution in Delaware County under the  Deadbeat Dad' legislation that was passed in New York in the mid-1990s, Vredenburgh said.
Vredenburgh said a defendant can only be prosecuted under the felony statute if they have already been convicted of second-degree nonsupport of a child, a class A misdemeanor.
Burrows pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor level charge in Delhi Town Court on March 5 and was sentenced to three years of probation. He was also required to pay $52 a week in child-support payments and continue until the $39,000 he owed in back support is paid.
On May 27, Burrows was arrested for a violation of probation for not making any payments.
Burrows' attorney, Christopher Wilson of Oneonta, refused Thursday to comment on the case.
Laurie Schmitz, the mother of Burrows' 13-year-old daughter, Mia Burrows, said it was "a huge relief to know that something has finally happened."
Schmitz, 32, of New Smyrna Beach, Fla., said Thursday that she has known Burrows since she was about 12 years old; she was 18 when she had Mia.
Schmitz moved to Florida when Mia was a year old. She said Burrows came to Florida when Mia was 2 or 3, staying for a month, and it was the last time he saw her.
Schmitz said she sent Mia's school pictures to Burrows' family every year and occasionally called him, but he never made any effort to see his daughter or communicate with her.
"You can't force someone to be a father when they don't want to," Schmitz said.
Schmitz said she tried for years to collect child support from Burrows, but the last time she received any was in 2005, when he was ordered to pay $3,900 or go to jail. She said the original child-support order was issued in 1996 and required him to pay $28 per week. He can not pay $28 dollars a week? So this man loose days weeks and month even years of his life simply because he refuse to pay child support. Now he has a felony on his record limiting him on what kind of job he could get in his life time.
Schmitz credits Jeffrey Bowie, a Delaware County Social Services investigator, with pursuing her case against Burrows.
"They spent hours looking for him," Schmitz said. "I have gone to New York three times for court appearances, but he never showed up."
Schmitz said Delaware County paid to fly her from Florida to testify before the grand jury.
"It only took the grand jury about 30 seconds to indict him," Schmitz said. "It was really very emotional for me."
Schmitz said she hopes her victory will encourage other mothers to fight for their child's right to support.
"There are a lot of people out there that will not fight it because they don't know how to pursue it," Schmitz said. "Let this be a lesson that it can be done."
Schmitz said she doesn't expect to recover all of the money her daughter is entitled to.
"I've become immune to the fact that he is never going to pay _ but why should he be out and about making money and enjoying himself?" she asked.
Schmitz said that if Burrows gets out of prison and fails to make payments, she intends to pursue having him charged and arrested again. Hell has no fury like a scorn women... I understand now!!!
___

Mc Grady ordered to pay $54,000 in child support

Basketball star Tracy McGrady of the Houston Rockets must pay a Bradenton woman $54,156 a year in child support for their daughter, plus insurance and tuition, a Sarasota County circuit judge ruled. The amount is far less than the $204,000 a year that Pearl Vega, 36, had argued would be more in line with McGrady's $21.6 million annual income and give their child a lifestyle more equal to that of McGrady's other children.

Women seem to think that since they had a baby by a star it intitles them to the stars money claiming that the child should live as the star lives. This is just simple logic that must be considered that if the child lives at a certain life style so must the parent!
The Circuit Judge Donna Berlin ruled that Vega had overstated the child's needs and has "used child support to enhance her personal lifestyle and that of her other two children."
"It is inappropriate for Ms. Vega to use child support as a means to further her education when she chooses to attend college as a full-time student and expect Mr. McGrady to pay for tuition, a full-time nanny and other domestic help," Berlin wrote in the decision. Now this makes sense, although a large majority of child support judges don't follow this thinking. Maybe a book should be written for judges called "Decision making For Dummies involving Child Support issues"

Vega's attorney immediately filed a notice the mother would appeal.
At a trial, she highlighted exactly what it means to be the child of an NBA star:
McGrady shares a six-bedroom, 23,000-square-foot house with a pool outside Houston with his wife and three children. He spends $5,000 per month on a chef and $1,732 for a housekeeper.
One of the children had a $16,000 birthday party for about 40 children, with a magician, clown, face painter, games and music.
McGrady and his family spend about $45,000 per month for personal travel, sometimes on private jets. The children went on trips to New York, to North Carolina a dozen times -- to Florida about the same number -- and to Atlanta, California, the Turks and Caicos Islands, the Bahamas, Mexico, the Virgin Islands and Rio de Janeiro.
They stay at Ritz-Carltons, have private preschool and tutors, and get thousands of dollars' worth of clothes a month.

So he spends $45,000 a month with his family, this is a train wreck waiting to happen if he does not invest his money wisely... Some people call it bankruptcy...

‘Uncle Luke’

Davania Branch Burns, the ex-girlfriend to rapper Luther ‘Uncle Luke’ Campbell and the mother of his 20-year-old daughter, has reportedly asked a Florida judge to suspend his driver’s license for failing to pay child support.
According to The Miami Herald, Burns, a 41-year-old fire inspector, claims that Luke owes over $30,000 in child support for their daughter Lutheria Campbell.
Despite the fact that Lutheria is not a minor, Burns’ attorney, Jane E Carey, argues that the rapper’s daughter is entitled to the money.
“We want him to stand up and not be a deadbeat daddy,” said Carey. “He needs to do the right thing. He needs to take care of his child. Why should he not pay? The ordinary working man has to pay.”
Under Florida law, drivers with delinquent support obligations can have their license suspended. Carey wants Luke’s license pulled until he pays what we owes.

On fathers' responsibility, Obama gets a little personal

It's unprecedented. Barack Obama is using his campaign for president to upbraid African-American men who abandon their children.
The Illinois senator's politically risky message highlights a stark and very personal contrast between his upbringing and that of rival John McCain.
In a speech delivered Sunday to the congregation of the Apostolic Church of God in Chicago, the Democratic presidential nominee lamented that too many fathers "have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men ... nowhere is this more true than in the African-American community."
This is the racial equivalent of Nixon going to China. While social conservatives like to draw attention to the unwillingness of too many young black men to assume the responsibilities of fatherhood, Democrats and liberals are more likely to focus on social barriers and systemic racism.
But lately, it is liberal African-Americans themselves who have taken up the issue. The comedian and commentator Bill Cosby caused a stir last year when he published a book arguing that black culture, including its music and its attitude toward education, sends the wrong message to both young men and young women, who too often behave irresponsibly as a result.
It is a message that Mr. Obama has also taken up, both in his book The Audacity of Hope and during this campaign. On Sunday, the challenges facing black families dominated his address.
"We know that more than half of all black children live in single-parent households, a number that has doubled since we were children," he told the congregants, as he recited a litany of grim statistics: "Children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; they're nine times more likely to drop out of schools, 20 times more likely to end up in prison ....
"Any fool can have a child," he said. "That doesn't make you a father. It's the courage to raise a child that makes you a father."
Like any good liberal Democrat, Mr. Obama believes that government can help, which is why the senator is calling for increased federal funding for maternity leaves, prekindergarten and teachers. He would also provide job training and tax credits to fathers who meet their child-support obligations and would provide in-home nursing support for expectant and new mothers.
But ultimately, Mr. Obama stressed, only mothers and fathers can raise a child. That, he said, means turning off the television or taking away the computer game and helping your child with her homework.
It means not treating your child's Grade 8 graduation as though it were a major event. "You're supposed to graduate from the eighth grade," he told the crowd, to laughter and applause.
Most important, it means thinking less about yourself and more about your obligations to others.
"I say this knowing that I have been an imperfect father," who is too often missing from his own home, Mr. Obama added. And he said it knowing, as well, how different his own upbringing was from that of his Republican opponent.
Mr. McCain likes to declare that "I'm the son and grandson of admirals." He calls them the first heroes he ever knew and describes his relationship with them in his book Faith of My Fathers.
Mr. Obama, by contrast, spent much of his youth trying to come to terms with his father - an ambitious young Kenyan who made it all the way to the University of Hawaii, where he met and married Mr. Obama's mother, before going on to Harvard.
But Barack Obama Sr. abandoned his wife and son and returned to Africa. Mr. Obama was partly raised by his mother's second husband, Lolo Soetoro, in Jakarta, and at the age of 10 was sent back to Hawaii, where his mother's parents looked after him.
"I messed up more often than I should have, but I got plenty of second chances," Mr. Obama told the congregation. His first book, Dreams from My Father, explores the candidate's search for personal identity in the face of such a cosmopolitan upbringing.
It is uncertain what political advantage Mr. Obama hopes to gain from raising this subject. Liberal critics, both black and white, might take issue with his insistence on the importance of personal responsibility - a theme usually appropriated by the right.
But Mr. Obama's message will score points with voters who distrust and resent the obsession with victimization that characterizes many leaders of the black community. It is Mr. Obama's refusal to embrace that mantra that had some African-American critics accusing him last year of being not black enough. "Now I'm too black," he joked Sunday, referring to resistance to his candidacy among some white, working-class voters.
Whatever the political consequences, however, it appears Mr. Obama intends throughout the campaign to press home his message of the need for parental responsibility.
"I know the toll it took on me, not having a father in the house," he said Sunday, "the hole in your heart when you don't have a male figure in the home ... so I resolved many years ago that it was my obligation to break the cycle; that if I could do anything in life, I would be a good father to my children."
Whatever else this message is, it is deeply personal.

Child support benefit law criminals

The Minnesota Child Support Enforcement Agency rewards our incarcerated criminals. Minnesota Statute 518A.42 Subd. 3 clearly lays out an exception for men or women who are incarcerated. This Minnesota Statute specifically exempts people who are incarcerated from the minimum child support requirements. I believe Minnesota taxpayers should know how this affects them.
Under our current child support system, when a custodial parent is receiving financial assistance from the county in which they live, such as cash assistance, daycare assistance, or medical assistance, the non-custodial parent is responsible for paying the state back a portion, if not all, of the assistance that was given to maintain their child. This is paid back with the child support payment that is ordered from the non-custodial parent.
The non-custodial is responsible for this even if they are not working. In the event that this is the case, the current child support becomes back child support and is still owed to the state.
And can be collected in many ways. This program alleviates some of the burden on the Minnesota taxpayers.
However, under the above mentioned statute, once a person becomes incarcerated they are no longer required to be responsible for child support. It stops until they are released, no matter how long the
incarceration.
And any back child support that is owed before they are incarcerated is no longer reported to credit reporting bureaus.
Our criminal justice system has punished the offender for their crime, and the Minnesota Child Support System turns around and rewards them. Child Support is forgiven during their prison stay. Any assistance that the non-incarcerated parent receives will not be paid back after the offender is released.
This law should be stricken, and offenders should be responsible upon their release to pay back the back child support that accrued during their incarceration.
The only person who benefits from this statute is the criminal. The person who could not obey the laws set up to protect us. And the law abiding, productive citizens of Minnesota foot the bill not only for their daily needs in prison, but also take care of their child support as well.
The child suffers and so do the already heavily-taxed Minnesota citizens.

$842M in stimulus cash held back from debtors

The government has intercepted $842 million in economic stimulus payments for 1.5 million Americans who have skipped out on child support obligations, student loans or tax bills.
The amount withheld represents about 1.5% of the more than $57 billion distributed under the stimulus program. So far, 67 million tax filers have received payments.
About 54% of the cash intercepted will be funneled to states for child support, according to Dean Balamaci, a U.S. Treasury Department official. "We are really proud of that," he added.
Congress and the Bush administration came together earlier this year to enact a $170 billion economic stimulus package. The Treasury started distributing payments - $600 for individuals, $1,200 for couples and $300 per child - to tax filers. The goal was to juice the economy by putting money in the pockets of consumers.
Stimulus Cash for Child Support
One unanticipated side effect of the stimulus program is the recovery of money owed single parents and government programs that support children on welfare.
Of the stimulus cash that has been recaptured, $459 million is being sent to states to distribute for child support payments. And of that amount, $166 million is used to fund state child welfare programs and $292 million goes to custodial parents who have not qualified for welfare payments but are owed child support, according to Balamaci.
"It is important symbolically," said Robert Fellmeth, director of the Children's Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego School of Law. "The government is saying that you owe this and your debt is more important than having you run out and spend the money."
Social service officials says the intercepted stimulus money helps reimburse state coffers, according to Anthony Farmer, spokesman for the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance.
"The state has an interest in being involved in helping to collect child support because if people don't pay child support, then those parents go on public assistance," said Farmer.
Nearly 40% of the stimulus money that has been recovered by the Treasury Department is going back to the federal government in the form of back taxes owed and student loans. About 6% will go to states that are owed back taxes. Georgia, Maryland and New York - each of which has received more than $4.5 million - are receiving the biggest stimulus offsets.
The Treasury Offset Program
The stimulus offset effort is part of the Treasury Offset Program, which intercepts federal payments of any kind to pay debts. The entire program has collected $4.6 billion so far this fiscal year.
Generally, the offset program captures money owed by people who are found formally delinquent on tax or child support payments. Tax filers on scheduled pay plans with the government are not affected by the program.
Any debtor whose stimulus check is eligible to be absorbed by the program has already received notice that he or she is delinquent on a debt, according to a Treasury spokesperson.
"These are all situations where some attempt has been made to collect the bills on a voluntary basis," said another spokesperson for the Treasury. The program matches payments due with debts owed by Social Security number and last name, according to a spokesperson.

Stimulus checks are seized for child support

All state government is seizing federal economic stimulus checks to settle debts for child support and income taxes.
The child support division had collected about $1.2 million from stimulus checks that were diverted from more than 1,800 people through May 23. "We do this every year with regular income tax refunds," said Jerry Joy, the department's assistant director for child support. He said the department has estimated it will receive $1.5 million overall.


Over $80,000 had been refunded to people who appealed the seizure of their stimulus funds. In some cases, their money had been taken from income tax refunds.
People whose stimulus checks were diverted received notices from the state.
By mid-May, the Internal Revenue Service had refunded $27 billion to about 30 million taxpayers. It expects to send 130 million refunds by the end of June.
The last checks, except for taxpayers who requested extensions in filing their returns and a few other exceptions, will go out in July.
A diverse group of more than two dozen Americans who tracked how they spent their stimulus payments.

Anne Heche ordered to pay child support

The judge cut Anne Heche some slack regarding her child support. Heche was paying her ex-husband Coley Laffoon a whopping $14,978 a month in child support and paying for their private school tuition.Anne went to court and pleaded with the court to lower her child support costs claiming poverty. She basically said that she couldn't afford that much because her show Men In Trees was cancelled. The judge was nice enough to lower her child support from $14,978 to $3,700. That's nice of the judge! While the judge dropped the child support payment significantly, he also ordered her to pay her ex- husband a lump sum divorce settlement of $275,000.

Man must pay child support, despite test

A man who claimed for almost 13 years that he was the father of a child born during his marriage, despite evidence to the contrary, remains responsible for child support even after a paternity test proved otherwise, the Court of Special Appeals has held. A judge in Garrett County Circuit Court should not have granted Darren G. Kamp’s request for genetic testing without considering the best interests of the child, the appellate panel said. Because of that error, “it follows that the court erred in terminating [Kamp’s] child support obligation based on the paternity test results,” wrote Judge Ellen L. Hollander.
WHAT THE COURT HELD
Case: Dep’t of Human Resources, Garrett County DSS, Bureau of Support Enforcement, ex rel. Vicki Jo Duckworth v. Darren Gerald Kamp, CSA 2871, Sept. Term 2006. Reported. Opinion by Hollander, J. Filed May 30, 2008. Issue: Did the lower court err in ordering a genetic test and in terminating the child support obligation of a presumptive father who failed to contest paternity for almost 13 years? Holding: Yes; the lower court erred in ordering the genetic test because it failed to consider the best interests of the child, and erred in terminating the child support obligation because the genetic test was improperly ordered, the appellee’s legal status as father was never terminated and his claims were barred by laches and judicial estoppel. Counsel: Joseph B. Spillman for appellant; G. Gary Hanna for appellee.

Assistant State’s Attorney Joseph B. Spillman, who argued the case for the Garrett County Department of Social Services, felt the court came to the correct decision. “We certainly were pleased that the court made it clear that courts are required to give careful consideration of the best interest of the child before upsetting parental relationships established in divorce proceedings,” said Spillman. Kamp’s attorney, G. Gary Hanna, a solo practitioner in Cumberland, said recent events make him unsure of the case’s future. “We were disappointed with the decision, especially in light of the fact that the child and child’s mother have now completely left the jurisdiction,” said Hanna. “That is a subtlety that we weren’t able to tell to the Court of Special Appeals but since she’s now taken the child from the jurisdiction we really don’t know what will transpire.” Presumed parent Four children were born during Kamp’s marriage to Vicki Jo Duckworth, including a daughter who was born about four years after Kamp had a vasectomy, according to the appellate opinion. Despite allegedly knowing he was not the child’s father, Kamp held himself out as the girl’s father. Even when the parties divorced in 1999 and he was ordered to pay child support, Kamp did not dispute the girl’s paternity. In July 2005, the Department of Social Services filed a petition to increase Kamp’s child support obligation. Kamp then argued that the girl was not his biological daughter, but rather the child of a man with whom Duckworth was having sexual relations in 1992. The lower court ordered a paternity test, which excluded Kamp as the father. The court then terminated Kamp’s child support obligation for his daughter. DSS appealed, arguing that Kamp was precluded from contesting paternity and obligated to continue to pay support. Statutory duty Even if the test itself had been properly ordered, the appeals court said, it would have been an error to terminate child support because paternity was never terminated. “The decision made it clear that once a parental obligation is legally established the child support obligation continues unless parental rights are terminated,” said Spillman. Spillman said he thought the court placed great weight on the fact that Kamp never sought to terminate his parental rights. “One thing that does make this stand out a little bit … is Mr. Kamp did not want his parental rights terminated,” said Spillman. “He was seeking solely to have child support terminated.” Furthermore, the court found the burden was improperly placed on Duckworth to demonstrate that she could not get support from the girl’s biological father. “The best interest standard does not permit a court to cut off one source of a child’s economic support on a mere assumption that another source will arise to fill the void,” wrote Hollander. The court also held that Kamp’s claims were barred by the equitable doctrine of laches as he had waited almost 13 years to contest paternity, and that his request to seek termination of child support was barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel because he informed the court on several occasions he was the girl’s father. “By waiting until 2005 to assert a paternity challenge … appellee slept on his rights,” the court wrote.


I read the Courts decision and I agreed. Although once the father hits economic hardship and is having trouble paying child support is it really in the best interest of the child? If you take food out of one childs mouth to feed another is that in the best interest of the child? If so which one? Once money becomes a factor in a parent child realtionship it can sever ties that the court claims is already built up! So what then?

Holyfield behind on child support

Evander Holyfield may lose Home and owes Child Support claims Mom of his ChildBy.

Toi Irvin who has an 11 year old son fathered by former heavyweight champ Evander Holyfield, has filed a petition against Evander for missing two child-support payments. The petition for contempt was filed in the Fayette County Superior Court, and alleges that Evander owes $6,000 in child support for the months of May and June.
According to a report published in the The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, indicates that representatives for Evander have told her not to expect the payments.Quoted by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Irvin's Attorney stated: "It wasn't so much that he didn't pay. She was told they didn't know if she would be paid at all."Add to his problems, Evander may be in some deep financial trouble. According to a legal notice, his estate which is in Fayette County and reported to be worth $10 million, is under foreclosure. Reports in the media state the home will auctioned on July 1st by Washington Mutual Bank.