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

As some of you may recall, I recently expressed my irritation with the state of Washington's Division of Child Services regarding a mandatory fee they are charging custodial parents.  (Read the original entry here.)  You may have also noticed that a gentleman took the time to share his thoughts on the matter, and that I approved his comments.  I have a response for him, and I am posting it here for two reasons.  First of all, my response is too lengthy to be a "comment" on the blog.  The software doesn't allow me to post it.  *chuckle*  Secondly, I am concerned that other readers may misread what I wrote as this gentleman did.  I want you to be able to refer directly to the information I presented, his comment, and my response. 

There comes a certain point where one must make a stand.  Being told I'm expressing "nothing more than greed" in warning custodial parents about unfair burdens tells me it's time to clarify and make a stand.  Should you wish to just ignore the issue, that's fine by me.    If, however, you wondered what I meant, how child support works where I'm from, or anything of the like, feel free to read on.  Mr. Zwald does have a valid points in saying that most fathers are like himself, "wanting to support there [sic] children but not be used and abused by the support system."  All the more reason parents on both sides of the fence should be up in arms about one parent (or the other) being charged a fee for services provided by the state.

Moving on...

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.  As you can see, I have approved your comments.  Furthermore, I am going to answer your comment here, at length, in case anyone else happens upon the post or your comments and doesn't take the time to actually completely read what I wrote.  If there's one thing most folks don't like, it's having words put in their mouths or being accused of greed for sharing news and expressing concern for other people.

Please carefully re-read the blog entry you commented on.  I specifically stated that I *do* receive more than that amount and it was a mere irritating bite out of my budget.  I 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 split 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.  While you state that "many states" require mandatory garnishment, Washington (the state being referred to in my entry) does not.  Obligors are NOT automatically "forced" to pay by garnishment.  Full support enforcement (aka garnishment) is not a first step in Washington.  The state of Washington's Division of Child Services also provides a support REGISTRY, wherein parents set up an account and the state merely tracks that child support has been paid - or not paid.  If one uses the registry, one receives a statement (in the obligor's case, a billing statement with an envelope to mail the payment in).  The obligor still has to mail in a payment or pay online.  Full support enforcement/garnishment is a service that is chosen a) by both parents at the time of the parenting plan/support contract's initialization b) by a parent during the divorce to protect themselves (payor or payee) and ensure payment is tracked and done quickly with fewer steps by the obligor or 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.  However, again, note that the child support is a PERCENTAGE of her full care.  I am charged by the state with paying a percentage as well.  The state of Washington child support schedule adds up the total gross income of BOTH PARENTS and figures the dollar amount required to support a child/children in a household of that income amount; child support dollar amounts are then figured by a percentage of each parent's contribution to that household income.  To make things easy, let's use a very simple example.  If the total household monthly income were $1,000 and each parent earned half ($500 each), then each parent is responsible for paying half of the support (let's use an example of $100 per child).  That would mean the custodial parent receives $50 a month from the obligor - 50% of the support for the child.  The custodian provides the other $50 themselves.  Say one parent (just for fun, let's make it the mother who isn't the custodian!) makes 70% of that income ($700) and the father is the custodian and he earns only 30%.  That would mean he'd get $70 from mom, and he'd have to provide $30.  NOW - take $25 out of the $70 he gets from mom.  Don't you think that would have an impact?  There are low income families across the country who are working with JUST SUCH NUMBERS.  The state of Washington is charging a fee of $25 to any custodial parent who receives more than $500 in a YEAR - not a month, a YEAR.  This means custodians receiving as little as $50 a month are losing half of their support one month out of the year.  Mothers AND fathers. 

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.  Additionally, you imply that I seem to think only men are obligors, or that all non-custodial fathers are deadbeats.  I happen to know that neither of those are true.  There are plenty of deadbeat moms out there, as evidenced by a female commenter a few months back whose boyfriend had custody of his children and couldn't get his ex to pay her support!  There are also plenty of non-custodial fathers who are wonderful parents who pay not only on time, but early, and involve themselves in their children's lives.  I happen to know this because my step-father is one of them!

I specifically used the term "parents" multiple times in my original post 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.

I stand by my statement: custodial parents are being forced to bear the brunt of this fee.  As commenter Danae pointed out, it's probably because the state knows the custodian has the money - the state gets it first, takes what they want, then hands the rest to the custodian.

How do I know this?  We were charged the fee off of the last payment received this month.  For me, it simply meant delaying ballet sign-ups for the child a weeks until I got my paycheck.  For another parent, it might well mean less food on the table.  That is what angers me - and please note, I didn't say I'm mad at my ex-spouse because other parents are losing money they need due to a state charged fee.  The state should be splitting the fee, if it must be charged, between BOTH PARENTS, the custodian and the child support obligor.  THAT would be fair and just.