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

[stitchfan75]

First step she should take rather than asking a sister's friend's coworker's cousin is to actually contact the Family Court division. Most states offer FREE legal counseling to single mothers and will let her know how she will be impacted. In AZ, TX, and AK (all states that I had my order moved to over the years) never penalized a mother for getting child support because they would rather the money come from the father then them. You can even by pass the whole "will he pay me" by requesting immediate wage garnishment. Unless he quits his job (which you said he is responsible there) she will always get her money. Depending on how much he makes, it will probably be in excess of $400. For my one child I was getting $750 a month, it's 25% of his income. If he decides to quit his job or work off the books it becomes harder.
I will say this, if the state finds out she knows the father's whereabouts and did not file they can hit her to repay ALL of her received services. I saw this happen first hand to a friend in AZ. She knew where the father was but didn't want to lose her SNAP and Medicaid. When the state found out she was ordered to pay back the amount given or file for child support.

 

[runwad]

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.

It's really sad that men have stopped being men in this day and age! There was a time when men owned up to their responsibilities and took care of their own. Now everyone is lazy and wants someone else to take care of them. Terrible!

...and not ALL men, just these men mentioned in this thread

 

[JohnDaleswife]

It is still free money to help put your child through college, which equal assistance, even if it is not technically from taxes. If it were't going towards your child's education, it could be used to offset other things that taxes are spent on. It would be great if all states had this, but they do not, therefore people in other states might have to take a Pell grant instead. I think its rather rude for PP to state they she puts her kid through college without government assistance (even though she is still receiving some type of assistance) like that some how makes her better than those who need to use a Pell grant since their state does not have a free program like this. In my eyes it is the same. Assistance from others is assistance from others, no matter where the money comes from.

No where near the same. No one is forced to fund it and there is a grade point average needed to keep it. Many people get both. They get there school paid for with the lottery funds and then are able to literally pocket some of the left over funds from pell, and can choose just however they want to spend that money.

 

[JohnDaleswife]

First step she should take rather than asking a sister's friend's coworker's cousin is to actually contact the Family Court division. Most states offer FREE legal counseling to single mothers and will let her know how she will be impacted. In AZ, TX, and AK (all states that I had my order moved to over the years) never penalized a mother for getting child support because they would rather the money come from the father then them. You can even by pass the whole "will he pay me" by requesting immediate wage garnishment. Unless he quits his job (which you said he is responsible there) she will always get her money. Depending on how much he makes, it will probably be in excess of $400. For my one child I was getting $750 a month, it's 25% of his income. If he decides to quit his job or work off the books it becomes harder.
I will say this, if the state finds out she knows the father's whereabouts and did not file they can hit her to repay ALL of her received services. I saw this happen first hand to a friend in AZ. She knew where the father was but didn't want to lose her SNAP and Medicaid. When the state found out she was ordered to pay back the amount given or file for child support.

I doubt it would be in excess of $400, I know he has another child and I believe the mother of that child is getting support. So they would deduct that amount he is paying her from his income first. She has already given them the info on him. They know who he is and that he lives in our town.

But, do you or anyone know anything much about getting back child support? I wonder if the court would/could make him pay for that amount of money from her birth?

I mean that would be a lot of money. I just wonder how they would make a person come up with that much.

 

[JohnDaleswife]

It's really sad that men have stopped being men in this day and age! There was a time when men owned up to their responsibilities and took care of their own. Now everyone is lazy and wants someone else to take care of them. Terrible!

...and not ALL men, just these men mentioned in this thread

It's a lot of men nowadays, and some women too!

But I am almost certain to 100% that TANIF is the only assistance in Georgia where they will go after the father.

 

[lorijohnhill]

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.

The way it is SUPPOSED to work and the way it DOES work can be two very different things. My husband works part time retail and has fluctuating income. A few years ago his income brought us over the Medi-Cal limit by maybe $50 to $100. We received notice that we were now on the share of cost plan and our share of cost was $2500 a month. A MONTH. This was well more than we made in a month and we had a young child. When I called to ask about it, we got the shrug off. A couple of months later, his income went down again and we were back on the program again.

We also lost our food stamps as soon as we earned $20 per month over the limit. While it is not "supposed" to work that way, it does.

When our daughter was barely two years old, we had finally hit rock bottom. I had lost a very good job in the mortgage industry during the crash. We had just signed the papers for purchasing our house a week prior (hadn't even moved in yet) when my company suddenly imploded and went bankrupt. Our mortgage was $2000 a month, plus all the normal bills that come with life. The only job I was able to get paid $2000 a month for 30 hours a week. My husband made $11 and hour full time. We spent the better part of a year struggling to get out of this mess, burned through all of our savings, and ended up having to do a deed in lieu of foreclosure on our house. We had nothing left. Then my husband lost his job. We decided we had no choice but to try to get some help. After taking a day off of work to spend upwards of 6 hours at the DHA we were told that I worked too many hours to qualify for the Welfare to Work program. We made too much money to qualify for Medi-Cal (we would have $900 a month share of cost), and not enough money to qualify for Healthy Families. We also made too much money to qualify for food stamps. When I lost my job (because my company wanted me to work and wait a few months to get paid, if they could pay) and my husband finally landed a part time retail job, we were able to get on Medi-Cal and food stamps.

Now, this was 7 years ago, and things have changed some, but these are actual details of what a family goes through. It is not always a case of lazy welfare queens trying to make a buck off of the government. There are big cracks that many struggling families fall into and get lost.

I know it is a risk putting my personal past out there like that, but before anyone (no aim at anyone in particular) judges a struggling mother for the decisions she makes, walk a mile in her shoes. It is never a simple case of 1+1=2, there are people and personalities involved. Paperwork can be processed differently by different people. It's just a fact of life. We are NOT all treated equally. It's easy to say she should "do the right thing", but the question remains, "what is the right thing for her situation?"

 

[TwoMisfits]

It's easy to say she should "do the right thing", but the question remains, "what is the right thing for her situation?"

See, there's no difference. The right thing to do is the right thing to do. Now, it may not be the easy thing to do, it may not be the advantageous thing to do, but usually doing right is doing hard. The wrong thing is almost always the easy thing. I could go on with this point, but that's probably for another thread...

 

[barkley]

The way it is SUPPOSED to work and the way it DOES work can be two very different things. My husband works part time retail and has fluctuating income. A few years ago his income brought us over the Medi-Cal limit by maybe $50 to $100. We received notice that we were now on the share of cost plan and our share of cost was $2500 a month. A MONTH. This was well more than we made in a month and we had a young child. When I called to ask about it, we got the shrug off. A couple of months later, his income went down again and we were back on the program again.

We also lost our food stamps as soon as we earned $20 per month over the limit. While it is not "supposed" to work that way, it does.

When our daughter was barely two years old, we had finally hit rock bottom. I had lost a very good job in the mortgage industry during the crash. We had just signed the papers for purchasing our house a week prior (hadn't even moved in yet) when my company suddenly imploded and went bankrupt. Our mortgage was $2000 a month, plus all the normal bills that come with life. The only job I was able to get paid $2000 a month for 30 hours a week. My husband made $11 and hour full time. We spent the better part of a year struggling to get out of this mess, burned through all of our savings, and ended up having to do a deed in lieu of foreclosure on our house. We had nothing left. Then my husband lost his job. We decided we had no choice but to try to get some help. After taking a day off of work to spend upwards of 6 hours at the DHA we were told that I worked too many hours to qualify for the Welfare to Work program. We made too much money to qualify for Medi-Cal (we would have $900 a month share of cost), and not enough money to qualify for Healthy Families. We also made too much money to qualify for food stamps. When I lost my job (because my company wanted me to work and wait a few months to get paid, if they could pay) and my husband finally landed a part time retail job, we were able to get on Medi-Cal and food stamps.

Now, this was 7 years ago, and things have changed some, but these are actual details of what a family goes through. It is not always a case of lazy welfare queens trying to make a buck off of the government. There are big cracks that many struggling families fall into and get lost.

I know it is a risk putting my personal past out there like that, but before anyone (no aim at anyone in particular) judges a struggling mother for the decisions she makes, walk a mile in her shoes. It is never a simple case of 1+1=2, there are people and personalities involved. Paperwork can be processed differently by different people. It's just a fact of life. We are NOT all treated equally. It's easy to say she should "do the right thing", but the question remains, "what is the right thing for her situation?"

I first want to say that I'm so very sorry you were treated in this manner-it's in no way acceptable.

if you don't mind sharing-did anyone in dhs take the time to explain what a share of cost means as far as real out of pocket expenses to you? (I'm asking b/c one of my pet peeves when I supervised Medi-Cal was encountering people who never had it explained in full to them by staff and as a result turned down coverage for themselves/their kids which created totally avoidable future catastrophic medical debt).

 

[lorijohnhill]

See, there's no difference. The right thing to do is the right thing to do. Now, it may not be the easy thing to do, it may not be the advantageous thing to do, but usually doing right is doing hard. The wrong thing is almost always the easy thing. I could go on with this point, but that's probably for another thread...

I agree that the right thing to do is the right thing to do. Defining WHAT is the right thing to do is where the question comes in. Many people say that going after the father is the right thing to do, but that may not necessarily be the best thing for the child.

An example would be: A friend of mine could have gone after her ex for child support, but he was a drug addict, alcoholic, abusive dirtbag of man and the best thing for the child was to keep him completely out of her life. Child support keeps the custodial parent tied to the non-custodial parent. In this case, the right thing is to break all ties with the non-custodial parent.

 

[lorijohnhill]

I first want to say that I'm so very sorry you were treated in this manner-it's in no way acceptable.

if you don't mind sharing-did anyone in dhs take the time to explain what a share of cost means as far as real out of pocket expenses to you? (I'm asking b/c one of my pet peeves when I supervised Medi-Cal was encountering people who never had it explained in full to them by staff and as a result turned down coverage for themselves/their kids which created totally avoidable future catastrophic medical debt).

Yes, he told us that any time we had to use medical care we had to pay out of pocket until we reached the share of cost number. With the numbers I was given, that meant we would never be able to get medical care because we didn't make enough to pay out of pocket; we couldn't even pay all of our bills.

 

[Colleen27]

When our daughter was barely two years old, we had finally hit rock bottom. I had lost a very good job in the mortgage industry during the crash. We had just signed the papers for purchasing our house a week prior (hadn't even moved in yet) when my company suddenly imploded and went bankrupt. Our mortgage was $2000 a month, plus all the normal bills that come with life. The only job I was able to get paid $2000 a month for 30 hours a week. My husband made $11 and hour full time. We spent the better part of a year struggling to get out of this mess, burned through all of our savings, and ended up having to do a deed in lieu of foreclosure on our house. We had nothing left. Then my husband lost his job. We decided we had no choice but to try to get some help. After taking a day off of work to spend upwards of 6 hours at the DHA we were told that I worked too many hours to qualify for the Welfare to Work program. We made too much money to qualify for Medi-Cal (we would have $900 a month share of cost), and not enough money to qualify for Healthy Families. We also made too much money to qualify for food stamps. When I lost my job (because my company wanted me to work and wait a few months to get paid, if they could pay) and my husband finally landed a part time retail job, we were able to get on Medi-Cal and food stamps.

Wow, that sucks. In Michigan, there's no gap between medicaid and Healthy Kids - the adults might lose their insurance coverage or have a cost-share, but the kids are eligible for coverage up to a relatively middle-class income threshhold. DS was covered through Healthy Kids for a while when a judge saw fit to tell us that insurance premiums were an "unnecessary hardship" on my ex (and to be fair, it was a ridiculous cost - it is the "unnecessary" part that I took issue with) because my income qualified for state coverage, and it was reasonable coverage at a very small cost to me (earning about 30K/year at the time).

And from what I understand from friends and from what I remember of policy, food stamps phase down very gently as well. I thought it was by $1 for every $2 of countable (post-budget) earned income over a certain threshold, but it might be $1/$3.

 

[Disneyliscious]

I think its rather rude for PP to state they she puts her kid through college without government assistance

But why is that rude? She said she didn't use government assistance and she didn't. Government being the key word. I didn't take anything she said to be "better" than anyone else and am almost positive she didn't mean it that way. Yes, it is assistance, but its not something paid for by any taxpayer.

 

[barkley]

Yes, he told us that any time we had to use medical care we had to pay out of pocket until we reached the share of cost number. With the numbers I was given, that meant we would never be able to get medical care because we didn't make enough to pay out of pocket; we couldn't even pay all of our bills.

I wish the person had it explained it better-b/c it's sort of that way but not entirely.

the best way I can explain it is to say it's California's form of catastrophic coverage. in the event of a catastrophic illness or injury it can be a godsend. like when my dd was little and fell off a bike-over $65,000 in medical bills just within the first couple of weeks for orthopedic surgery, e/r.......if I had a share of cost program I would have seen my billable costs capped for that month at whatever my share of cost was-nothing more, so while it's not a great program for preventative care it can be insanely cost effective for a catastrophic event.

I honestly would love it if my insurance company offered a share of cost program. as it stands now I pay over $20,000 per year in premiums no matter if I access services or not. accessing services means more out of pocket through deductibles and co-pays. I would much prefer to have a share of cost that only enacted in the actual months we want/need services.


I hope things are doing better for you now-we lived in northern California and the real estate bubble burst just gutted so many industries and families, I'm glad it's showing signs of improvement.

 

[Vijoge]

It's really sad that men have stopped being men in this day and age! There was a time when men owned up to their responsibilities and took care of their own.

Nothing new here. 63 years ago my dad walked out on his wife (my mother) and their two children (my brother and me) and as soon as my mother remarried he permitted her new husband to adopt us so he wouldn't have to pay child support. He did the same thing to a previous wife and THEIR daughter, so while I admit my mom shouldn't have been surprised, it was a ****ty thing to do to his three kids. Just proves the deadbeat dad syndrome is nothing new.

 

[JohnDaleswife]

But why is that rude? She said she didn't use government assistance and she didn't. Government being the key word. I didn't take anything she said to be "better" than anyone else and am almost positive she didn't mean it that way. Yes, it is assistance, but its not something paid for by any taxpayer.

Thank you!

 

[Shmily1]

It is still free money to help put your child through college, which equal assistance, even if it is not technically from taxes. If it were't going towards your child's education, it could be used to offset other things that taxes are spent on. It would be great if all states had this, but they do not, therefore people in other states might have to take a Pell grant instead. I think its rather rude for PP to state they she puts her kid through college without government assistance (even though she is still receiving some type of assistance) like that some how makes her better than those who need to use a Pell grant since their state does not have a free program like this. In my eyes it is the same. Assistance from others is assistance from others, no matter where the money comes from.

No, really it isn't. In GA, they EARN the Hope grant by their grades. It's not a hand out. And no, it wouldn't go to some other program since lottery money is earmarked for this program. And just what other programs should it go for? More money going to people who sit on their behinds and put out more babies to get more money? Um, no thanks. I'd rather it go to education. As to the Pell grant, not everyone can get that (based on income), however, everyone in GA can EARN the Hope grant.

 

[Shmily1]

I doubt it would be in excess of $400, I know he has another child and I believe the mother of that child is getting support. So they would deduct that amount he is paying her from his income first. She has already given them the info on him. They know who he is and that he lives in our town.

But, do you or anyone know anything much about getting back child support? I wonder if the court would/could make him pay for that amount of money from her birth?

I mean that would be a lot of money. I just wonder how they would make a person come up with that much.

As to back child support, they can make him pay it. They put them in jail until they pay 25% of it, then they take their tax refunds every year until it is paid back. They can also garnish his wages for it as a separate item on top of paying normal child support.

 

[SirDuff]

As to back child support, they can make him pay it. They put them in jail until they pay 25% of it, then they take their tax refunds every year until it is paid back. They can also garnish his wages for it as a separate item on top of paying normal child support.

But would her SIL get the back payment? Since, had she been getting child support, the amount of government aid she got would have been reduced, won't the back payments go to paying that back? Rather than having the OP's SIL essentially "double dip". Or at least some/most if it?

 

[Shmily1]

But would her SIL get the back payment? Since, had she been getting child support, the amount of government aid she got would have been reduced, won't the back payments go to paying that back? Rather than having the OP's SIL essentially "double dip". Or at least some/most if it?

Not usually. In GA, it seems the mom's get the money back. The state will also go after the dad for their portion too though.

 

[QueenIsabella]

Not only can they garnish wages, but they can go after tax refunds (including EITC), lottery winnings, Social Security--basically, any money he might get from the government. They can additionally garnish wages for back payments. The OP seems convinced that this isn't worth it because of effects on current benefits. Not only do I think that's just wrong--the father should be supporting his child--but I think it's also having the wrong priorities. At a minimum, the mother should talk to Legal Aid. this should cost her nothing (or very little--they do some things on a sliding scale, based on income). They have a ton of experience dealing with just this situation, and could help the mom navigate the issues. The goal here should be getting the mother what's due her, and also helping her get on a path to self-sufficiency. Even if it's hard, that's the best gift she can give to her daughter.