Frustrated, embaressed and mad!

[DisneyBamaFan]

We are leaders in an organization in our community and are seen w/ DSS all the time. We were working with the heads of other civic organizations w/ the ESS for the Sheriffs Dept. Him being accused in writing of abandoning his son and not paying Child Support was embarrassing. DF was there as well. There was no way to not tell him...

Look, I have also been in the position to review applications like this. It is terrible that this person lied, but I think that it is even worse that so many people have access to this kind of application information. A group of people that includes you and your DF and enough other people that the two of you would be embarrassed is too many.

Your town should rethink its policies around the handling of private information from applicants. This sounds like it could be in violation of the law. Where I used to do this, only one person ever saw all of the information for an applicant, and that person's job was to pare down the data offered to the committee, also changing names that might be recognizable into case numbers. By the time I left (we moved), we had a computer program that did that for us to protect the privacy of applicants.

 

[disneyelaine]

It's Christmas, he has autism, his mom is on disability. The need is probably there. It is so very hard for a single mom to hold a job when you are raising a child with autism. Dang near impossible by reading your previous posts on your future step son's behavior issues.

And this may be her "truth" as she sees it. Maybe she does feel the ex abandoned her. Maybe she is resentful he is now raising your kids. Without HER ex husband, maybe you'd be needing the empty stocking, karma, be careful. Child support is usually such a small amount compared to the real cost of providing for a autistic childs needs.
It sounds like she is still not over the divorce. I know this is all speculation, but the truth is usually half and half in divorce situations.

It also sounds like you are too concerned about the apperarences of how this makes "you" look because you are leaders in a community organization. I would think everyone knows ex's have issues with ex's. and lies are said. Who cares. It should roll off your back.

I think this CHILD does deserve the empty stocking and if you sent me your County Info I would make a big donation just for him. I do not mean to offend, but having a son about the same age with autism and having an abundent to share......well it's my passion to help kids with autism. We do it every year in our own community.

 

[hambirg]

It's Christmas, he has autism, his mom is on disability. The need is probably there. It is so very hard for a single mom to hold a job when you are raising a child with autism. Dang near impossible by reading your previous posts on your future step son's behavior issues.

And this may be her "truth" as she sees it. Maybe she does feel the ex abandoned her. Maybe she is resentful he is now raising your kids. Without HER ex husband, maybe you'd be needing the empty stocking, karma, be careful. Child support is usually such a small amount compared to the real cost of providing for a autistic childs needs.
It sounds like she is still not over the divorce. I know this is all speculation, but the truth is usually half and half in divorce situations.

It also sounds like you are too concerned about the apperarences of how this makes "you" look because you are leaders in a community organization. I would think everyone knows ex's have issues with ex's. and lies are said. Who cares. It should roll off your back.

I think this CHILD does deserve the empty stocking and if you sent me your County Info I would make a big donation just for him. I do not mean to offend, but having a son about the same age with autism and having an abundent to share......well it's my passion to help kids with autism. We do it every year in our own community.

This.

I wrote "there are two sides to every story" because frankly my ex's crazy gf could have wrote what the OP did.

If mom is on disability and is raising a disabled son, with a household of, sounds like 7 people, I am more than sure she qualifies. I don't think that is fraud. . .it's probably just her point of view. If she was filling out 6 applications under 6 different names, collecting the goodies then selling them on Craigslist or E-bay. . .than THAT would be fraud.

Sensitive issue for me. . .OP says the ex pays child support. . but that doesn't really mean jack squat. How much does he pay? How much actually makes it to Mom? My ex had our order modified, conveniently the 3 weeks he wasn't working. He pays $167/month for 3 kids. . .that's total. . not per kid! Now that he is working they are taking $500/month. . .but I still only get the $167. . .to pay back the state for assistance we got when he wasn't paying anything. We don't know what the real case is here. OP says they have the DS at least every other weekend. . .sorry, but that's only about 4 days out of 30. . 31. That could feel like abandonment to the Mom. . .just sayin. . .two sides.

Let the kid get his gifts from the charity and make sure DF is doing what he's suppose to be doing. . .maybe next year Mom won't find her self in the situation where she has to feel like she has to ask for outside help to provide a Christmas for her child.

JMHO

 

[luvsJack]

This.

I wrote "there are two sides to every story" because frankly my ex's crazy gf could have wrote what the OP did.

If mom is on disability and is raising a disabled son, with a household of, sounds like 7 people, I am more than sure she qualifies. I don't think that is fraud. . .it's probably just her point of view. If she was filling out 6 applications under 6 different names, collecting the goodies then selling them on Craigslist or E-bay. . .than THAT would be fraud.

Sensitive issue for me. . .OP says the ex pays child support. . but that doesn't really mean jack squat. How much does he pay? How much actually makes it to Mom? My ex had our order modified, conveniently the 3 weeks he wasn't working. He pays $167/month for 3 kids. . .that's total. . not per kid! Now that he is working they are taking $500/month. . .but I still only get the $167. . .to pay back the state for assistance we got when he wasn't paying anything. We don't know what the real case is here. OP says they have the DS at least every other weekend. . .sorry, but that's only about 4 days out of 30. . 31. That could feel like abandonment to the Mom. . .just sayin. . .two sides.

Let the kid get his gifts from the charity and make sure DF is doing what he's suppose to be doing. . .maybe next year Mom won't find her self in the situation where she has to feel like she has to ask for outside help to provide a Christmas for her child.

JMHO

I agree with this totally. We don't know the situtaion of the other adults in the household, there may be reasons they do not have jobs. We are only hearing about them from the OP's line of view, which may or may not be slightly skewed.

Same thing with child support. I have a friend whose ex was ordered to pay a whopping $45 per week! That was it. So, he too could say "but I pay my child support!"

Its great that the OP's DF is providing his son with a great Christmas and maybe even purchasing some things to open at her house, but that doesn't take away from a mother wanting to provide her own child with something.

 

[MrsPete]

According to the Empty Stockings Fund website for the OP's county, eligibility is determined by DFACS and not "sob stories". So, I am at a loss of how the OP's future husband's ex-wife was in the program unless her kids are receiving assistance from the state.

http://www.emptystockingfund.org/About/Who_We_Serve.html

Maybe they ARE receiving state assistance. If mom'd lie to one agency, why wouldn't she lie to another?

Regardless of whether the ex qualifies for the program and regardless of what she wrote on the application, its contents should NEVER have been shared with the OP. As soon as someone suspected it was the ex, the OP and her DH should have been asked if it was.

In theory, yes. But in reality, no one would've had any idea that the OP was connected to this particular child.

 

[Gigi22]

OP, some good may yet come of all this. There may well be privacy (and legal) issues involved concerning applications submitted to your charity. You may wish to suggest that applicant anonymity should be reviewed, and brought into line with your city/state guidelines.

In your shoes, I think I would have recused myself, and let the other committee members deal with the application.

 

[luvsJack]

Maybe they ARE receiving state assistance. If mom'd lie to one agency, why wouldn't she lie to another?

In theory, yes. But in reality, no one would've had any idea that the OP was connected to this particular child.

If she is on disablity and the child is disabled, why would she need to lie? There being other adults in the house without jobs would not make her ineligible. If they were working and bringing in a large amount of money it would, but according to the OP that is not the case.

 

[robinb]

OP, some good may yet come of all this. There may well be privacy (and legal) issues involved concerning applications submitted to your charity. You may wish to suggest that applicant anonymity should be reviewed, and brought into line with your city/state guidelines.

Gigi, I was thinking the same thing. If anything this incident has highlighted some possibles issues in the process for determining eligibility.

I do want to pause for a moment and commend the OP and her fiance for volunteering for the Empty Stocking Fund. There will be many kids in her community who will have a brighter Christmas because of the hard work that they do .

 

[Took]

I am ready to paint her as the villain. It must suck to be one-uped by your ex over Christmas presents. And I do feel bad for her in that regard. And I will agree that it is a miserable position to be in.

BUT... the second she applied - fraudulently - to a charity for more presents for her son, I lost all compassion. Her son will be getting Christmas presents this year. She was so concerned about herself, and how she would look that she was willing to take presents away from children who would not be anything. And that I can not stand.

My sentiments exactly.

 

[Disney Doll]

I am amazed at the responses on this thread.
OP, I feel for you.
Apparently personal responsibiilty is no longer a requirement for anything.

 

[kaytieeldr]

OP, some good may yet come of all this. There may well be privacy (and legal) issues involved concerning applications submitted to your charity. You may wish to suggest that applicant anonymity should be reviewed, and brought into line with your city/state guidelines.

In your shoes, I think I would have recused myself, and let the other committee members deal with the application.

To what end? Assuming the OP's fiance and his ex-wife have the same last name, and it's recognizable to the other people in the room/on the committee that the applicant is the man's ex-wife on behalf of their son, what would be the point of not participating in determining if this particular applicant should be eligible?

The mother is lying - misrepresenting, for people who prefer sugar-coating - her son's situation in, what? An attempt to garner additional sympathy? Have a better chance than she thinks she would of getting his stocking filled? I don't know. It doesn't really matter. The OP can ignore this application and let the others decide what to do about it. Won't matter. They still got to see that - supposedly - her fiance is a deserting deadbeat dad.

 

[NikitaZee]

I am amazed at the responses on this thread.
OP, I feel for you.
Apparently personal responsibiilty is no longer a requirement for anything.

I agree. I can't believe some of these responses either. The ex-wife might feel abandoned, so that's why she wrote it on the application. And the OP had the nerve to actually be in the room when the screening process was going on, and had access to the name on the form. Geez - I would feel the same way as the OP, and you can BET I would let my fiance know what was being misrepresented about him. It seems that some folks have no problem supposing the ex-husband is not living up to his end of the bargain somehow. I don't see that from the OP's posts at all.

 

[robinb]

I am amazed at the responses on this thread.
OP, I feel for you.
Apparently personal responsibiilty is no longer a requirement for anything.

Exactly how is the OP's fiance's ex-wife expected to show "personal responsibility"? Scratch up enough money from her disability payments to buy her son something nice? Maybe clip coupons to make her Child Support stretch a bit more? Like it or not, it appears that the ex-wife is eligible for the program. I suspect if the OP did not see her name on the application it would have been a no-brainer to approve the request.

 

[robinb]

It seems that some folks have no problem supposing the ex-husband is not living up to his end of the bargain somehow.

Huh? None of us have said that. Some people have pointed out that the amount of money that some non-custodial parents pay for child support is surprisingly small, but I don't think that any of them are accusing the OP's fiance of not taking care of his obligations . All they are saying is the child support is not the gravy train that some people make it out to be.

 

[wvjules]

She IS a truly needy family. She probably didn't need to lie to get into the charity but some people just can not resist. OP-I'd be irrate but I would know that karma will take care of her sometime-or already has. Let it go and keep smiling; your life is good.

Karma for a mother wanting to give her child a nice Chritsmas? She should be burned at the stake in her next life.

 

[NikitaZee]

Huh? None of us have said that. Some people have pointed out that the amount of money that some non-custodial parents pay for child support is surprisingly small, but I don't think that any of them are accusing the OP's fiance of not taking care of his obligations . All they are saying is the child support is not the gravy train that some people make it out to be.

Sure someone did - stating that a visitation schedule of two weekends a month could be viewed as abandonment by the ex-wife "sorry, but that's only 4 days out of 30" was the statement. As far as taking personal responsibility, I believe a PP was referring to lying on an application to receive aid - not that the ex-wife should have to scrape together money from a disability check for x-mas.

 

[kaytieeldr]

And the OP had the nerve to actually be in the room when the screening process was going on, and had access to the name on the form.

The "nerve"? Excuse me???? The people who VOLUNTEER on this committee that prescreens applications before they go to the sheriff's department to be fulfilled (or not) have NO idea who is applying. These volunteers MUST be in the room in order to screen the applications, and, well, I guess it'll be the sheriff's department responsibility in the future to create some type of anonymity.

But to criticize a volunteer who coincidentally encountered some misinformation, and who simply came here to complain??? Really????????

 

[EveDallas]

The "nerve"? Excuse me???? The people who VOLUNTEER on this committee that prescreens applications before they go to the sheriff's department to be fulfilled (or not) have NO idea who is applying. These volunteers MUST be in the room in order to screen the applications, and, well, I guess it'll be the sheriff's department responsibility in the future to create some type of anonymity.

But to criticize a volunteer who coincidentally encountered some misinformation, and who simply came here to complain??? Really????????

I'm pretty sure the poster you're replying to was being sarcastic in her response.

 

[NikitaZee]

The "nerve"? Excuse me???? The people who VOLUNTEER on this committee that prescreens applications before they go to the sheriff's department to be fulfilled (or not) have NO idea who is applying. These volunteers MUST be in the room in order to screen the applications, and, well, I guess it'll be the sheriff's department responsibility in the future to create some type of anonymity.

But to criticize a volunteer who coincidentally encountered some misinformation, and who simply came here to complain??? Really????????

You are misreading the tone of my post. I am defending the OP where it seems others think she should not have been in on the process. The word 'nerve' should have been in italics, I am typing from a phone. Hope that clears it up.

 

[NikitaZee]

I'm pretty sure the poster you're replying to was being sarcastic in her response.