Not real sure as to why my sister in law should even file for child support now

[barkley]

Is there no yearly limit for programs like this?

as far as food stamps ("snap" as it's now known)-no time limit if there's a child under the age of 18 in the household but once the kiddo reaches the age of 6 the adult has some 'work requirements' (pretty loose, and even if the adult doesn't comply the kiddo still gets benefits so it's not a total cut off of benefits).

as far as housing-it's SO dependent on the funding source (local, state, fed)-and even then it depends on how the program is written up. I had a co-worker who had a horrendous medical issue that exhausted all her sick leave, all state disability insurance (and that state paid for a full year)....she finally qualified for subsidized housing after a relatively short period of time (18 months) just as she was returning to work full time. she assumed (based on administering public assistance programs) that she would be totally ineligible based on her income-NOPE. the way the program in the county she lived in worked, b/c she qualified at the time she applied she was qualified when she hit the top of the list AND the program allowed for a 1 year period of time from the time of move in before they would look to her current income to see if she continued to qualify for taking on a larger percentage of the full rent (I seem to remember she got full subsidized for 18 months b/c they gave her the first 12 months based on pretty much no income, but because she had to be given notice and time to appeal after review of her actual income there was at least 6 months beyond that before she was obligated to enter into a full fair market rental price with the landlord).


if a government agency is willing to pursue a child support order it's no money out of the pocket of custodial parent who should consider that while it may not 'pay out' short term-it could pay out LARGE big term:

I personally know (not through work) of a person who dodged child support for DECADES (even did some short term time in county jail for non payment). worked under the table, figured nothing would ever happen to him......then one of his parents died and someone in the child support collections department was alerted (the kind of notifications different divisions get from public records is amazing). the entire estate was frozen and reviewed with a fine tooth comb to ensure sonny boy got his share that was paid directly to the c/s support division who delivered tens of thousands in back support to the custodial parent

 

[Colleen27]

I'm not sure how much of this varies by state, but here there is an exclusion amount so not 100% of child support counts as income (it was low - I think $50/mo - when I worked in the system in the late 90s). After that point, even the worst case scenario still has the recipient coming out ahead - 30% would go to rent, and there could be as much as a 50 cent on the dollar reduction in food stamps. So if, for example, she got $200/mo in child support, $150 would count as income so her rent would go up by $45 and her food stamps could (depending on her earned income) go down by as much as $75... but she'd still be coming out $80/mo ahead.

 

[mel&me]

Why should she apply? Because the child's father (rather than tax payers) should be supporting his child if able.

yep, that sums it up

 

[Alesia]

the incentive to make more money is to become self reliant so that no one is making rules about how you have to live your life, what decisions you have to make on pursuing other sources of income.....but the greater incentive (imho) in this type of situation is to set an example for the child-the statistics do not lie, generational public assistance receipt occurs most often when children grow up in it in a manner in which they don't see/know that it can be worked out of.

I don't disagree, but the problem is that neither of those things result in having food on the table today. Struggling parents don't have the luxury of thinking about the far-reaching consequences of their actions - they have to take care of their kids most basic needs right now. Losing the ability to feed your kids because you don't want others "making rules about how you live your life" is not an option. Neither is losing your home because you don't want your children to grow up on public assistance.

 

[PlainJane]

I'm not sure how much of this varies by state, but here there is an exclusion amount so not 100% of child support counts as income (it was low - I think $50/mo - when I worked in the system in the late 90s). After that point, even the worst case scenario still has the recipient coming out ahead - 30% would go to rent, and there could be as much as a 50 cent on the dollar reduction in food stamps. So if, for example, she got $200/mo in child support, $150 would count as income so her rent would go up by $45 and her food stamps could (depending on her earned income) go down by as much as $75... but she'd still be coming out $80/mo ahead.

I'm purely curious, and I'm sure it would vary by state, but what happens when the parent is ordered to pay child support but doesn't or only pays sometimes? Would the custodial parent still have to pay more in rent and lose some food stamp allotment because they theoretically should have the extra income?

 

[Lisa F]

Not that I am advocating living the way she is, but there are two scenarios here.

1) she keeps things the way they are and has a hard time making ends meet BUT she has a roof over her head and she has food to feed her child and she knows if her child gets sick, she can be seen by a doctor and not be buried under medical bills she cannot afford.
2) she goes after child support. she gets it awarded by the court. her rent goes up and her SNAP benefits go down and maybe she doesn't qualify for medicare anymore... all assuming she will get that money. BUT she doesn't. Because deadbeat dad doesn't pay. At least in my state he has to be in arrears by 6 or 8 weeks in a row before you can file in court. So all deadbeat dad has to do is make one payment every 8 weeks to keep from being hauled into court... and by the way, where is she going to get a lawyer? Maybe there is free assistance out there but I'm sure it has a long waiting list. Meanwhile weeks and weeks pass with higher rent, less income, no SNAP and now toddler gets sick and she can't afford to go to the doctor.

Just saying, it's not as simple as being motivated to get off the dole. Relying on child support from a deadbeat dad is a losing proposition no matter how you look at it, until you get to the point of wage garnishment, which can take a very long time... and then, deadbeat dad just finds a job where he is paid under the table to avoid that as well. I've seen it happen several times. Maybe the system is easier to navigate for those who have nothing but friends of mine have always had to weigh essentials vs. attorney bills to make their ex husbands pay up and you wouldn't believe what they do to avoid it.

Also working more hours with a toddler may not be possible as child care probably costs more per hour than what she is capable of making... but hopefully once the kid is in school your sister in law can start working more to better her situation.

Our system here in the US sucks and is stacked against the poor and until we stop blaming the poor and start blaming the system, nothing will ever change.

 

[JohnDaleswife]

Is there no yearly limit for programs like this?

No, not at all.

I'm purely curious, and I'm sure it would vary by state, but what happens when the parent is ordered to pay child support but doesn't or only pays sometimes? Would the custodial parent still have to pay more in rent and lose some food stamp allotment because they theoretically should have the extra income?

Very good point. I was thinking of just that earlier. I think that could be a very possible situation for her at some point.

 

[JohnDaleswife]

Not that I am advocating living the way she is, but there are two scenarios here.

1) she keeps things the way they are and has a hard time making ends meet BUT she has a roof over her head and she has food to feed her child and she knows if her child gets sick, she can be seen by a doctor and not be buried under medical bills she cannot afford.
2) she goes after child support. she gets it awarded by the court. her rent goes up and her SNAP benefits go down and maybe she doesn't qualify for medicare anymore... all assuming she will get that money. BUT she doesn't. Because deadbeat dad doesn't pay. At least in my state he has to be in arrears by 6 or 8 weeks in a row before you can file in court. So all deadbeat dad has to do is make one payment every 8 weeks to keep from being hauled into court... and by the way, where is she going to get a lawyer? Maybe there is free assistance out there but I'm sure it has a long waiting list. Meanwhile weeks and weeks pass with higher rent, less income, no SNAP and now toddler gets sick and she can't afford to go to the doctor.

Just saying, it's not as simple as being motivated to get off the dole. Relying on child support from a deadbeat dad is a losing proposition no matter how you look at it, until you get to the point of wage garnishment, which can take a very long time... and then, deadbeat dad just finds a job where he is paid under the table to avoid that as well. I've seen it happen several times. Also working more hours with a toddler may not be possible as child care probably costs more per hour than what she is capable of making... but hopefully once the kid is in school your sister in law can start working more to better her situation.

Our system here in the US sucks and is stacked against the poor and until we stop blaming the poor and start blaming the system, nothing will ever change.

Made some very good points. No chance of losing the free or extremely cheap health care, unless she married a man that made really good wages. A lot of those points I have given thought to. I tell you, I have one hell of a man. I got pregnant at 21 by him and he is still with me. Love him more than life! I am so blessed. Her baby daddy is a piece of ****!

 

[barkley]

made a long reply post but the quotes posted such it made no sense-sorry.

 

[barkley]

I'm purely curious, and I'm sure it would vary by state, but what happens when the parent is ordered to pay child support but doesn't or only pays sometimes? Would the custodial parent still have to pay more in rent and lose some food stamp allotment because they theoretically should have the extra income?

the programs i administered did not count c/s until it was actually collected and received (either by the custodial parent or the government agency) so if the absent parent is obligated but not paying it wouldn't have a negative effect on rent/lower food stamps or other public assistance.

even if it is collected not all programs count it in whole, and some programs won't consider it at all if it's sporadic.

 

[barkley]

Not that I am advocating living the way she is, but there are two scenarios here.

1) she keeps things the way they are and has a hard time making ends meet BUT she has a roof over her head and she has food to feed her child and she knows if her child gets sick, she can be seen by a doctor and not be buried under medical bills she cannot afford.
2) she goes after child support. she gets it awarded by the court. her rent goes up and her SNAP benefits go down and maybe she doesn't qualify for medicare anymore... all assuming she will get that money. BUT she doesn't. Because deadbeat dad doesn't pay. At least in my state he has to be in arrears by 6 or 8 weeks in a row before you can file in court. So all deadbeat dad has to do is make one payment every 8 weeks to keep from being hauled into court... and by the way, where is she going to get a lawyer? Maybe there is free assistance out there but I'm sure it has a long waiting list. Meanwhile weeks and weeks pass with higher rent, less income, no SNAP and now toddler gets sick and she can't afford to go to the doctor.


even if it's awarded it's not counted unless their is actual proven receipt of the monies so her rent wouldn't go up/food stamps wouldn't go down if the absent parent wasn't actualy paying.

she wouldn't have to pay for a lawyer-if the state agency is telling her she has to apply then the costs are covered by the state. she signs a form that agrees to allow the state to purse c/s on her behalf-they take it from there, no cost. delays won't impact her-again, no change to rent/food stamps, Medicaid absent actual proven receipt of c/s.

Just saying, it's not as simple as being motivated to get off the dole. Relying on child support from a deadbeat dad is a losing proposition no matter how you look at it, until you get to the point of wage garnishment, which can take a very long time... and then, deadbeat dad just finds a job where he is paid under the table to avoid that as well. I've seen it happen several times. Maybe the system is easier to navigate for those who have nothing but friends of mine have always had to weigh essentials vs. attorney bills to make their ex husbands pay up and you wouldn't believe what they do to avoid it.

it's free for public assistance recipients vs. private individuals who have to pay for attorneys (it's considered cost effective and is a condition of application/receipt for some programs).

Also working more hours with a toddler may not be possible as child care probably costs more per hour than what she is capable of making... but hopefully once the kid is in school your sister in law can start working more to better her situation.

depending on the state/public assistance programs she's on there can be full pay childcare for travel/work hours (as well as job training including job search/college classes which can be free b/c she's in receipt of snap benefits)-just last year the usda funded awarded $200 MILLION in additional grants to fund transportation and childcare cost for snap recipients.

Our system here in the US sucks and is stacked against the poor and until we stop blaming the poor and start blaming the system, nothing will ever change.

I'm not laying the blame on any group of people-but i know there are plenty of programs available out there for people to take advantage of, and i just can't fathom choosing not to make extra money that will help to better feed and house a child just because "it's hardly worth it" (any extra net cent that can be brought into a struggling household can be of benefit).

 

[lorijohnhill]

I'm not laying the blame on any group of people-but i know there are plenty of programs available out there for people to take advantage of, and i just can't fathom choosing not to make extra money that will help to better feed and house a child just because "it's hardly worth it" (any extra net cent that can be brought into a struggling household can be of benefit).

In many cases, the person actually comes out BEHIND in this situation. The way these programs are set up, depending where on the spectrum you fall, a tiny increase in income can cause you to drop off of a program, which will cause you a net loss of income in the end. Take food stamps (SNAP) for example... Let's say you get a $100 a month increase in income, you are very happy with this until you realize that this bumps you off of the SNAP program. You were receiving $400 a month in SNAP, now you are at a $300 a month deficit.

It's not always a matter of choosing not to try to make more money. It comes down to the question of can you make ENOUGH more money to still support your child. These calculations are even more daunting when you look at medical care and prescription costs.

 

[Lisa F]

In many cases, the person actually comes out BEHIND in this situation. The way these programs are set up, depending where on the spectrum you fall, a tiny increase in income can cause you to drop off of a program, which will cause you a net loss of income in the end. Take food stamps (SNAP) for example... Let's say you get a $100 a month increase in income, you are very happy with this until you realize that this bumps you off of the SNAP program. You were receiving $400 a month in SNAP, now you are at a $300 a month deficit.

It's not always a matter of choosing not to try to make more money. It comes down to the question of can you make ENOUGH more money to still support your child. These calculations are even more daunting when you look at medical care and prescription costs.

Exactly. and when your future is not even in your hands but in the hands of a deadbeat baby daddy, that is even more frightening and stressful. Yes, EVENTUALLY you can get to the point of wage garnishment so that you automatically get the money but it is a long and stressful process for someone who doesn't want to pay and knows how to work the system. I know a grown man with a college degree and professional job who purposely lost his job and started installing cable to cut his child support burden because he'd rather have less himself than pay so much to his ex wife. I know women who have had to deal with their exes quitting their jobs and working under the table so that they only have to pay a few dollars child support. No one wants to be at the mercy of that and someone who is on the edge of poverty cannot afford to be at the mercy of that.

For the OP yes, it is depressing. This is (part of) why it is so hard in this country for people to pull themselves out of poverty. Because there is a period where they will actually be worse off for working hard to get out of it. It sucks, doesn't it? I'm glad your SIL is in a nice apartment and can take care of her little one.

 

[QueenIsabella]

She should go after him for child support because it's the right thing to do. He should be supporting the child that he helped make. I understand the concern with her benefits, but it's still the right thing to do. Right is right. He probably owes back support and/or reimbursement to the government for support provided to date. He knows about the child, right? Then he knows he should be providing support. Why let him off the hook?

 

[Shmily1]

In GA, when you sign up for a government program, you put down the father's information. They ask if it is any way would harm the mom or child if the father is contacted for support. If she checked that box, that's why they haven't contacted him. They do usually contact the other parent so that the state can get paid back for the benefits they are receiving.

Another way that benefits her by contacting him for child support is giving her self esteem. It does bother some people to be on government assistance but others don't seem to mind at all.

 

[Colleen27]

I'm purely curious, and I'm sure it would vary by state, but what happens when the parent is ordered to pay child support but doesn't or only pays sometimes? Would the custodial parent still have to pay more in rent and lose some food stamp allotment because they theoretically should have the extra income?

Only actual, received income is reported on the application and review forms, so an order that isn't paid on at all would have no effect. And generally they look at 3 months' income to establish averages for erratic income so if the father is only paying occasionally that is what will be reflected in the mother's household income.

In many cases, the person actually comes out BEHIND in this situation. The way these programs are set up, depending where on the spectrum you fall, a tiny increase in income can cause you to drop off of a program, which will cause you a net loss of income in the end. Take food stamps (SNAP) for example... Let's say you get a $100 a month increase in income, you are very happy with this until you realize that this bumps you off of the SNAP program. You were receiving $400 a month in SNAP, now you are at a $300 a month deficit.

It's not always a matter of choosing not to try to make more money. It comes down to the question of can you make ENOUGH more money to still support your child. These calculations are even more daunting when you look at medical care and prescription costs.

FWIW, SNAP no longer works that way. It phases out rather than cuts off. After a certain income threshold, benefits are reduced by $1 for every $2 of countable income. I'm not sure exactly when that change went into place - I think with the Clinton-era welfare reforms - but it greatly reduced the disincentive to work by ensuring that earning more income isn't a losing equation. Medicaid is a little trickier for adults (and in my state that's a new issue - non-pregnant adults couldn't get medicaid until the ACA) because as far as I know there is still a hard-limit cutoff for that, after which you're expected to transition to a subsidized marketplace plan which can have high out of pocket costs. But for kids the CHIP programs ease that transition as well, because families that make just barely too much for medicaid can get similar coverage for their children with a minimal, based-on-income premium.

 

[barkley]

In many cases, the person actually comes out BEHIND in this situation. The way these programs are set up, depending where on the spectrum you fall, a tiny increase in income can cause you to drop off of a program, which will cause you a net loss of income in the end. Take food stamps (SNAP) for example... Let's say you get a $100 a month increase in income, you are very happy with this until you realize that this bumps you off of the SNAP program. You were receiving $400 a month in SNAP, now you are at a $300 a month deficit.

Only actual, received income is reported on the application and review forms, so an order that isn't paid on at all would have no effect. And generally they look at 3 months' income to establish averages for erratic income so if the father is only paying occasionally that is what will be reflected in the mother's household income.

FWIW, SNAP no longer works that way. It phases out rather than cuts off. After a certain income threshold, benefits are reduced by $1 for every $2 of countable income. I'm not sure exactly when that change went into place - I think with the Clinton-era welfare reforms - but it greatly reduced the disincentive to work by ensuring that earning more income isn't a losing equation. Medicaid is a little trickier for adults (and in my state that's a new issue - non-pregnant adults couldn't get medicaid until the ACA) because as far as I know there is still a hard-limit cutoff for that, after which you're expected to transition to a subsidized marketplace plan which can have high out of pocket costs. But for kids the CHIP programs ease that transition as well, because families that make just barely too much for medicaid can get similar coverage for their children with a minimal, based-on-income premium.

YES-only RECEIVED income is used, and if someone were getting it regularly and it stopped or became sporadic then they could report it to their worker who could take corrective action to the budget to remove that income from the budget resulting in a likely increase to their allotment of food stamps (so long as they are not already receiving the max for their family size). so for child support UNLESS actual collection and receipt is occurring it's not a negative impact.

YES-earned income is NEVER counted dollar for dollar. between the standard deduction off the top and other deductions (based on rent, work related expenses...) the rule of thumb when I worked years ago was about a 20 cent reduction in food stamps per dollar of increased income, I just looked up more recent data and it's still only a 30 cent loss for every extra net dollar earned. so right off the top taking increased hours an employer offers can result in netting 70% of the income. add on top of that the impact it can have as far as the earned income tax credit goes (tax refunds including eitc are not counted against food stamps) and even a small bump in earnings can make a huge net difference coming into a household (2016 max eitc w/one kid is $3373-works out to an additional $281 per month, not bad when you consider the maximum food stamp allotment in most states for a household of 2 people is capped at $357).


I GET that trying to actually receive child support can be a terrible process, but for those 'in the system' wherein they don't have to pay for an attorney to deal with it, they don't see their income reduced when it's not received-it can be tremendously beneficial to still go through the pursuit process. get that deadbeat absent parent into the system as well-then it will trigger alerts a c/s collection staff member can pursue if absent parent gets unemployment benefits so they can be attached, if they are granted social security so the dependent's benefit can be pursued, if they have some connection to healthcare coverage so the dependent can get better than the bare bones Medicaid provides...it costs nothing, and while it might not reap initial financial benefits it could down the line (LOVED IT when one of my clients got a nice big lump sum out of the blue b/c by virtue of an actual order being in place).

 

[SirDuff]

Ya, we are putting a child through college with zero government aid. Lottery helps a lot, but still a couple thousand a year OOP.

Did you win the lottery? Sorry, confused by the comment "Lottery helps a lot". I think many (most?) people would be ecstatic if they were only paying a couple of thousand dollars a year for college.

 

[sdsatl]

Did you win the lottery? Sorry, confused by the comment "Lottery helps a lot". I think many (most?) people would be ecstatic if they were only paying a couple of thousand dollars a year for college.

I assume she's talking about the Hope scholarship, which is funded by our state lottery. My husband and I didn't pay anything for college in the early 00s on Hope (thanks, Zell Miller).

 

[SirDuff]

I assume she's talking about the Hope scholarship, which is funded by our state lottery. My husband and I didn't pay anything for college in the early 00s on Hope (thanks, Zell Miller).

So, that's not considered "government aid"?