A TANF check and child support

[mm1971]

My niece has a three month baby boy by her ex boyfriend who is a complete loser. They were together for about a year before she got pregnant and are over with completely now. The ex does'nt want to have to do anything with the child and she wants that as well, seeing that he will be a very sorry excuse of a parent with the child.

But this is where the problem may lay. She is contemplating applying for a TANF check with the state of GA. But I was told that the state of GA will ask for the father of the childs name and make her go after child support. (Which she does not want to do for fear that if he has to pay her child support, he will then be involved in this child's life. So is this true? Will the state of GA go after the father of the child for support?

Yes, the father would be required to pay child support, if able. I understand your dislike of having to keep the connection there, but why would the state of GA pay to support the child if a parent had the means? I have a few family members that have had similar situations.

Just because he pays child support doesn't necessarily make him part of the child's life. That is a decision the father would need to make, but it sounds like he already has. Having a child doesn't make you a father. Loving, caring and being there for a child does. Good luck, it's a tough situation.

 

[GaRedHead]

Well I know several people that I work with that have our company insurance but their child/children are on medicaid/peachcare. The state is picking up the tab for them even though one and or in some cases both parents have insurance with their employer and have the opportunity to insure the kids.

 

[Colleen27]

Well I know several people that I work with that have our company insurance but their child/children are on medicaid/peachcare. The state is picking up the tab for them even though one and or in some cases both parents have insurance with their employer and have the opportunity to insure the kids.

At what cost, though? I know of a lot of employers who offer employee-only coverage at very low cost to each employee but who pass along all or most of the additional cost of insuring a family. So the employee only premium might be affordable but the family premium is completely out of reach.

My ex got a judge to strike the requirement that he provide health insurance from our original child support order because of the cost - $20/week for just the employee, $150/week for a family plan (regardless of the number of dependents covered, which makes it especially painful for a single guy trying to insure his only child). He was making $8/hr at the time.

 

[GaRedHead]

At what cost, though? I know of a lot of employers who offer employee-only coverage at very low cost to each employee but who pass along all or most of the additional cost of insuring a family. So the employee only premium might be affordable but the family premium is completely out of reach.

My ex got a judge to strike the requirement that he provide health insurance from our original child support order because of the cost - $20/week for just the employee, $150/week for a family plan (regardless of the number of dependents covered, which makes it especially painful for a single guy trying to insure his only child). He was making $8/hr at the time.

I completely see your point. But I do believe this is what is to come to many people in the future with employer based health insurance. I believe next year that my employer will drop the spousal coverage completely, and make it extremely high to insure my children, while the premium for myself will remain very affordable. Wish I could get myself some peach care for my kids. By the way, what did you do once the order was struck down? Were you eligible for the government health insurance for child?

 

[Colleen27]

I completely see your point. But I do believe this is what is to come to many people in the future with employer based health insurance. I believe next year that my employer will drop the spousal coverage completely, and make it extremely high to insure my children, while the premium for myself will remain very affordable. Wish I could get myself some peach care for my kids. By the way, what did you do once the order was struck down? Were you eligible for the government health insurance for child?

We were eligible and the judge even used that as part of the reasoning for his ruling: that I was better able to provide insurance without financial hardship via MiChild (Michigan's version of PeachCare) than my ex could through work. But I didn't bother applying - it was a gamble on nothing catastrophic happening but DS went without insurance from the June ruling until my wedding to DH in Sept, at which point we added him to DH's policy.

 

[bigmamimia]

It's really too bad your niece didn't choose adoption. There are a ton of stable couples with decent incomes who are infertile and want a baby. Adoption is really the best thing for the child. But unfortunately our country has some sort of taboo about adoption so it's not really talked about. Our country teaches people to be extremely selfish and have a me-first attitude about everything. The best thing for the child is the last consideration 99% young unmarried women (most either choose to abort it or to raise it themselves in an unstable broken home).

I find your comments to be extremely judgmental and ignorant. You know almost nothing about this young woman and yet make the statement that "Adoption is really the best thing for the child." She may be in a tough spot right now however, that does not mean that she is not the best option for her child.
Your comment "The best thing for the child is the last consideration 99% of young unmarried women (most either choose to abort it or to raise it themselves in an unstable broken home)" couldn't be further from the truth.I don't know where you get your facts from but I am sure that the best thing for the child is not the last thought of 99% of young unmarried women. My son has been raised in a stable home with a mother who has only ever tried to get ahead. Not for myself but for my child. I had no ambitions or goals before my son came along because it was only myself I had to take care of. Once I got pregnant all I wanted to do better for him. So HE could have a good life.
I was a young, unmarried woman when I got pregnant. Not for one second did I entertain the thought of abortion.
How many times have you been a young unmarried woman that gives you all this knowledge about how they think?

 

[Colleen27]

I find your comments to be extremely judgmental and ignorant. You know almost nothing about this young woman and yet make the statement that "Adoption is really the best thing for the child." She may be in a tough spot right now however, that does not mean that she is not the best option for her child.
Your comment "The best thing for the child is the last consideration 99% of young unmarried women (most either choose to abort it or to raise it themselves in an unstable broken home)" couldn't be further from the truth.I don't know where you get your facts from but I am sure that the best thing for the child is not the last thought of 99% of young unmarried women. My son has been raised in a stable home with a mother who has only ever tried to get ahead. Not for myself but for my child. I had no ambitions or goals before my son came along because it was only myself I had to take care of. Once I got pregnant all I wanted to do better for him. So HE could have a good life.
I was a young, unmarried woman when I got pregnant. Not for one second did I entertain the thought of abortion.
How many times have you been a young unmarried woman that gives you all this knowledge about how they think?

I think most of us just decided not to rise to the bait on that one. Sometimes you read a post that is so far out there that it just isn't worth wasting your time and breath/typing to argue with.

 

[bigmamimia]

Thank you Colleen. I thought that perhaps others agreed with him and that was why no one had posted anything in reply to his comments. I guess he was just . My situation has made me very sensitive to comments like that. I had to work very hard to get off and stay off TANF, food stamps, section8. It was a back and forth ping pong match for the last two years especially but I am now completely off government assistance, and have been for 4 years. I work very long work weeks that are usually well over 50 hours. Including several 16 hour shifts a week. I have always made sure that I do not work in the afternoon/early evening hours so I can make sure my son has done his homework, eats dinner and gets a shower. I do this not because I am selfish as the other poster insinuated young unmarried mothers to be but because of the exact opposite. I guess I shouldn't have responded to his uneducated post but maybe he can see that his narrow minded view of the world is not reality for many single moms.

 

[shell8558]

When applying for state assistance - she will be required to list the fathers name. And the state will secure a child support order against the non custodial parent , after a paternity test or an acknowledge of paternity is signed . As others have said - child support and visitation do not go hand in hand . In our state - Louisiana - we do not include visitation in our orders . We don't get involved in that. ( there are plenty of non custodial patents who never pay and see their kids all the time and vice - versa)
Also in our state - the non custodial can sign away their rights , but continue to pay the child support until the child is adopted . After working for the child support system for over 15 years - I have learned that it is always in the best interest of the child to get paternity established , that way the child will be entitled to any benefits from that parent - social security , social security death benefits etc...

 

[Tracy NS]

She should go for the child support regardless. Child support and visitation are 2 seperate issues. The child is entitled to it, and it sounds like the mom needs it. If the Dad is interested he can get awarded visitation regardless. It's true he may try to get visitation out of spite, but if it is his motivation it is unlikely he will keep showing up.

This is exactly what I was going to say. If he's anything like he sounds, even if he were to be awarded visitation, he most likely wouldn't exercise those rights.
Trust me, I'm in the same situation with my daughter's father. He's got visitation, just chooses not to use it.

 

[crashbb]

See, that's the great thing about Statistics. They aren't mean, they aren't judgmental, they just are. They are the statement of facts drawn from large sample sizes. Yes, you may be the outlier, but if you give me 1000 children raised by single mothers with no college degree and 1000 children raised by two-parent households with college degrees I will guarantee these things:

1) The children from single parent households will graduate college at a significantly lower rate than the children from two parent households

2) The children from single parent households will marry at a significantly lower rate than the children from two parent households

3) The children from single parent households will have more births before 22 years old than the children from two parent households

4) The children from single parent households will receive much greater public assistance than the children from two parent households

5) The children from single parent households will have lower incomes than the children from two parent households

6) The children from single parent households will have more disciplinary problems in school than the children from two parent households

7) The children from single parent households will have used drugs at a higher rate than children from two parent households

8) The children from single parent households will become sexually active at younger ages than the children from two parent households

Do you have any actual proof to back up all your claims?

Even if you do, your statistics don't actually prove your point. Not all couples who adopt are two adults with college degrees. Since your premise is that a child put up for adoption does better than a child raised by his or her single mother, you need to actually be comparing those two situations. I can find lots of statistics, by the way, that show that children who are raised in homes other than their birth homes do worse (in all the things you mention above) than children raised in their birth homes. Does that mean that adoption is bad? Of course not. It means that I can find statistics to back up any claim I want to, by careful choice of my comparison groups.

And, before you tell me that I just don't understand statistics - my PhD is in biostatistics. I am well aware of the saying - "Torture your data long enough and they will admit to anything".

 

[bigmamimia]

Jasonkat, could you please document the resources that support your "statistics"? I think Colleen was right this "gentleman" definitely is not worth the breath we have wasted on his obvious idiocy.
I imagine that you came from one of these single mother homes that couldn't afford you a proper education. A college degree was not wasted on you.

 

[LaurLaur04]

I find offense with those statements. I am a single mother. I came from a two parent household. I have a college degree (working on number 2) and I get no financial help from the state or the father. So what your saying is my child is pretty much doomed either way? I think not.

 

[crashbb]

Yes, but I cannot show it to you because I was given a warning so apparently I have to remain "pc".

If you are curious about statistics behind what I wrote feel free to do a little Googling.

I've done research in it and, as I said, can find statistics saying exactly the opposite of what you've posted. That's my point. Posting statistics, by the way, isn't the problem. Telling posters that they are evil because they choose to raise their child is the problem.

 

[bigmamimia]

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=3052106&highlight=jasonkat&page=2
I feel so foolish now for being dragged into this liars plot to rile people up on the disboards. I had to see what he has preiously posted to make me change my mind and decide that he was not as bad as I thought. No such luck. I found these posts he has made about his wife being pregnant most of the years in 2010, 2011, and 2012. He stated in posts on this thread that his family is sterile.
Keep scrolling down and you will see where he says that he had started a thread "inquiring why there was such a huge cost difference over ten years for BLT, BCV, and VWL vs the other 4. But some people tried to turn the thread into a thread about whether or not I was a fit for DVC. But that wasn't the question I was asking I just wanted to know why there was such a difference in cost. So, I would describe people changing the topic of the thread and telling me I wasn't a fit for DVC without knowing anything more about me than I'd only gone to WDW twice the past 3 years as "ragging"."
Does anyone else see the complete hypocrisy of this statement considering he did the same thing to this woman's post? I would describe Jasonkat changing the topic and telling young, unmarried women they aren't fit for motherhood without knowing any more about them than the fact they are not married and no longer with the child's father as "ragging".

 

[chicagodisneyfan]

Being a single parent does not mean a child is doomed to a horrible life. However it does present some challenges.

For example:
nearly six of 10 children living with mothers only were near the poverty line.

75% of children/adolescents in chemical dependency hospitals are from single-parent families.
(Center for Disease Control, Atlanta, GA)

More than one half of all youths incarcerated for criminal acts lived in one-parent families when they were children.
(Children's Defense Fund)

63% of suicides are individuals from single parent families
(FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - Investigative Aid)

75% of teenage pregnancies are adolescents from single parent homes
(Children in need: Investment Strategies...Committee for Economic Development)

 

[Colleen27]

Being a single parent does not mean a child is doomed to a horrible life. However it does present some challenges.

For example:
nearly six of 10 children living with mothers only were near the poverty line.

75% of children/adolescents in chemical dependency hospitals are from single-parent families.
(Center for Disease Control, Atlanta, GA)

More than one half of all youths incarcerated for criminal acts lived in one-parent families when they were children.
(Children's Defense Fund)

63% of suicides are individuals from single parent families
(FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - Investigative Aid)

75% of teenage pregnancies are adolescents from single parent homes
(Children in need: Investment Strategies...Committee for Economic Development)

But it is important to keep in mind that "single parent" for statistical purposes includes both unmarried mothers and divorced parents. Being married at the time of conception or birth doesn't mean that your children will be on the "two parents" side of the statistics. My brother and I both fall into the single parent stats in some significant ways, but our parents were married and we were both planned pregnancies.

The pot-stirring previous poster further distorted the statistics by comparing single mothers with no college (a category that includes HS grads as well as drop-outs) with married parents who have 4-year degrees. There's a lot of ground between those two extremes, and in fact only about 25% of the adult population of the US has a degree at all.

 

[sk!mom]

My niece has a three month baby boy by her ex boyfriend who is a complete loser. They were together for about a year before she got pregnant and are over with completely now. The ex does'nt want to have to do anything with the child and she wants that as well, seeing that he will be a very sorry excuse of a parent with the child.

But this is where the problem may lay. She is contemplating applying for a TANF check with the state of GA. But I was told that the state of GA will ask for the father of the childs name and make her go after child support. (Which she does not want to do for fear that if he has to pay her child support, he will then be involved in this child's life. So is this true? Will the state of GA go after the father of the child for support?

So she'd like tax payers to help support her child instead? Not cool. The dad should be paying child support.

 

[okeydokey]

The state should absolutely make her name the father so the father can pay. The mother should also be working or be in school full time in order to any get benefits.

 

[4HppyCamprs]

.

And, before you tell me that I just don't understand statistics - my PhD is in biostatistics. I am well aware of the saying - "Torture your data long enough and they will admit to anything".[/

Can I borrow that saying As a college student myself it made me lol

Sent from my iPhone using DISBoards