Women at work and their tips, challenges, advice, complaints, and experiences

Ugh!! Bleh...yeah, they KNOW that at least the recipient will HAVE the money...but I agree, totally NOT fair! I mean, you're already dealing with a deadbeat ANYWAY, this just makes it totally unfair!! =(

As a payer of support, what I read in this is nothing more than greed. I can agree with the fact that there is no justice in the way support is collected but most states order that it be paid through a state agency. This is because there is federal matching funds given to the states based on the amount of money that goes through there hands. This keeps figures up, giving the states the ability to get more taxpayer money.
To complain about having to pay $25 a year for tax free income is really sad. Just how much are you living off your children's support money? Your using the same housing someone else is paying for your children for. Food, transportation, and the list goes on and on.
I would recommend that instead of turning your anger towards your ex, I would think it should be the state, because they are currently receiving federal funds just for this purpose. For every $100 they collect from your ex to send to you, they are getting $50. This is where this $25 fee should be paid from. They used to get $65, so maybe that's why there now asking for more from other sources.
While I do not know what your personal situation is, and you may in fact have a valid point, I would like to remind you that most fathers are like myself, wanting to support there children but not be used and abused by the support system.

I see that you have to approve my comment before it is posted. I guess we'll see if both sides of the story is represented.

Mr. Zwald,

First of all, your IP address was blocked from an immediate comment due to a flag for spam from Spamhaus.org. I suggest you contact them regarding the matter and investigate further. It has nothing to do with ME as the author.

Secondly, please carefully re-read the blog entry above. I specifically stated that I *do) receive more than that amount and it was a mere irritating bite out of my budget. I specifically stated that the people I am worried about - moms AND DADS - are the people who receive a pittance in child support and have had to garnish the wages of the obligor in order to even get that amount. For those people, $25 is a tank of gas to get to work, childcare money, or food on the table. It is low-income families (mothers and fathers) in custody of children who receive small amounts of child support who are most affected by this.

At no point did I say I'm angry with my ex-husband about this issue. I stated it is only fair that both parents should pay HALF of the fee. Both parents created the child(ren). Both parents are charged with caring for the child. Both parents should be charged half of the fee, or better yet, a percentage based on how the child support itself was figured.

Furthermore, in WA state automatic garnishment is not in effect. Obligors are NOT automatically "forced" to pay by garnishment. It is a service that is chosen a) by both parents b) by a parent during the divorce to protect themselves (payor or payee) c) by the parent who has not been receiving child support as ordered by the court and has been forced to request full payment services, including garnishment. This last one is my case, for reference. My child's care is provided in my household and the child support reimburses us. It only provides a PERCENTAGE of her care, not her full care, and it certainly doesn't go into my pocket for fun and games. It reimburses us for room and board, her homeschooling curriculum, her extracurricular activities, travel expenses, and other expenses for her. While you, as a father, may actually be a caring individual who would pay his support on time, you need to understand that there are fathers AND MOTHERS who do not pay on time and steps must be taken to force them to pay. In that instance, is it fair that they do not contribute to the payment for the very services required to care for their child, due to their unwillingness to contribute to the child's support financially?

The fact that you would say I am being greedy for expressing concern about OTHER parents' finances shocks me. I specifically used the term "parents" multiple times and mentioned that there are moms AND dads who use these services. The only time I focused specifically on women (and male exes) was at the end, where I said "Ladies". Why would I say that? Because the primary readers of this blog are "women who work" (ie WORKERETTES). Men are more than welcome here, but I suggest that you re-read the blog entry and recognize that I made it very, very clear that custodial parents of either sex can be forced to bear an unfair burden by the state of Washington by not having a mandatory fee split fairly.

You failed to address the fact that the state, no matter which state, is currently receiving federal subsidies that should be covering this fee. While I have lived in WA, I no longer do and did not have the requirement to learn the divorce laws there (used the right form of there/their this time).
What I did read in your response was that BOTH parents are financially responsible for the upbringing of their children. This is the way it should be, and this is currently written in the law here in NH.
In my personal experience, I was keeping up with my payments, only to open my paycheck to find it was deducted, after making a payment, I did NOT receiving the notice this was going to happen, which is the law here (NH RSA 453:B-5). When I approached my ex, through her attorney about the double payment, the response was "To Bad". I never did get reimbursed.
My obligation was determined by our combined income, the same way you used in an example to me, and the CHILD support obligation was split between the two of us. Yet then my ex is able to quit her job, have no income, which she stated in court under oath, but NOT be held accountable for her share of the CHILD support. How can she fulfill her support obligation with no income? The ages of the children was not a factor on her ability to work over caring for the them. So, how can someone who is not employed able to get three different cars in three years? Why is this person NOT labeled as a "dead beat" by not providing the support obligation due to raise the CHILDREN? If the children live with them, are they not also required to finically support them? The court says they are, but it's NOT enforced in the same way the non-residential parent is. I think that's the true "dead beat parent", yet I'm the one referred to and treated as a dead beat.