[ty6853]

If he switches from contract/1099 to a wage job I wonder if child support will start garnishing the fuck out of it. This is the black hole a lot of people get sucked into and end up having to start their own business to buy some runway because the courts very much enjoy kicking non custodial parents in the teeth to the point they cannot get one foot on the ground.

[kaikai]

Supporting their kids is one of their responsibilities. Child support is income-based. I haven’t had to navigate that system so don’t have specific advice, but I’m not going to support someone dodging child support.

[ty6853]

It is based on imputed not actual income, unlike taxes. Hence say someone getting taken hostage by terrorists will owe back support and be jailed upon their release [0].

The tax analogy would be the IRS thinks you should be better at stocks, maybe on the basis you had a few good years, then taxes you for that this year instead of your bad gains due to luck/depression/whatever.

https://greensboro.com/ex-hostage-jailed-in-child-support-ca...

[waste_monk]

Unfortunately they have to be pretty harsh about chasing up child support, as people spend fantastic amounts of time and effort trying to dodge it. Support has to use imputed income based on earning capacity, because people regularly quit their jobs (or get ones that pay significantly worse that their previous income) to avoid paying child support.

I have a relative who worked in family law and I have no doubt there is a subset of the population (or rather the subset of the population who end up in the family court system) stupid and vindicative enough that they would deliberately get themselves held hostage, if they thought it would get them out of child support.

[1123581321]

That sounds like a plaintiff's perspective when there is no concern for the welfare of the other parent. From a broader view of family law, we should be trying to make it more fair and being watchful for opportunities to reform abuses. The public has an interest in the welfare of both parents and any children in a divorce. We want the children to have two healthy and stable parents, and we do not want to incur health and human services costs from a destabilized parent. Not to mention the moral issues with allowing injustice to occur in an imbalanced area of the legal system.

[waste_monk]

>That sounds like a plaintiff's perspective when there is no concern for the welfare of the other parent.

It would be more accurate to say that the court prioritises the welfare of the child above that of the parents.

That is, the system (in theory) should enforce that the child recieves the same level of support and standard of living as it would if the parents had not separated.

Judges take a very dim view of parents trying to escape their support obligations, as if they were allowed to do so it ultimately only hurts the child.

[ENGNR]

Is this reasonable though? Going from one household to two households raises expenses. People also just go through bad times, mental troubles, skills atrophy. Even just not seeing your kids might make someone lose the will to get up early and give it all they’ve got for another decade.

Is it really fair that previously they got to work hard to buy their kid nice things, but now they must work hard to buy them nice things or go to jail?

[imtringued]

>It would be more accurate to say that the court prioritises the welfare of the child above that of the parents.

That's not true. The welfare of the child is already destroyed by separating the child from one of its parents. If the court prioritized the welfare of the child, then it would give out 50:50 custody by default, with the non-custodial parent having to consent to child support to avoid custody.

[lukan]

So you think it is allright to put someone literally in jail, after they were just released as hostages and had arguably some reason to miss payments?

[waste_monk]

>and had arguably some reason to miss payments?

How was the court meant to know that? keeping in mind that article was from 1990 and it was a lot harder to share information.

It sounds like the court was sympathetic and he was freed as soon as practicable:

>Sherrill called a family member, who contacted the chief district judge, Sol Cherry. Cherry called the jail and ordered Sherrill's release. He was freed about 7:30 p.m.

[lukan]

Well, he told them. And had evidence.

"freed as soon as practicable"

They demanded cash only. In the evening.

Practical in my opinion would have been, "yeah sure, as a just released hostage we can sort it all out tomorrow in your case"

But everbody followed their orders and acted as part of the machine.

[zmgsabst]

Are those vindictive people sometimes the custodial parent, as well?

[waste_monk]

Oh, there are plenty of vindicative custodial parents, but I haven't heard of one reducing their own income as it wouldn't increase the child support, just hurt their own wallet.

It's more along the lines of trying to prevent the non-custodial parent from having visitation and that sort of thing.

[zmgsabst]

My implication was they’d demand unfair child support which left the non-custodial parent destitute and unable to recover, even though that’s not in the interest of the child, as an act of retribution.

A story I’ve seen play out several times.

[imtringued]

That sounds like an incredibly dumb way to solve the problem. The correct solution is to have a mandatory insurance policy for child support that both parents pay in and contributes to their retirement account once the children are adults.

>stupid and vindicative enough that they would deliberately get themselves held hostage, if they thought it would get them out of child support.

It sounds like you're arguing in favor of a broken system. In what world is it rational to get held hostage? In this one apparently.

[s1artibartfast]

Just because it is income based doesnt mean it is appropriate and set at the right rate, or even in the child's interest.

If someone can't afford gas or tools to work, then the child suffers more.

Even if it isnt the norm, traps and perverse situations abound.

[anon743448]

I agree but sometimes system is setup in such ways that you can never reliably support your children.

I have met a few people at work who feared jail time whenever there were rumors of restructuring or layoffs. Even with their tech salaries, they had no money leftover for emergency fund. And if they don’t pay child support, they’ll go to jail. How are they supposed to support their children from a jail?

[indymike]

You have to pay to go to court to get child support lowered, resulting in really unjust outcomes for homeless people. I'm not sure that someone who spent a year on the streets is in a position where they can pay this month's child support, let alone the last year's back child support. This stuff is crushing to even think about.

[6stringmerc]

Not in Texas, it’s most often ruled upon based on income expectations.

[infamouscow]

OP stated being located in Utah.

[endofreach]

It's not like the government is taking the money though... usually it goes to someone who is arguably deserving. So i feel "kicking in the teeth" seems inappropriate.

I also fucked up because of taxes many times and just recently a big bad "surprise" hit me. But it's not like it was not my failure of responsibility.

[john_moscow]

No point in setting yourself on fire to keep others warm though.

[kaikai]

Actually I think caring for your children is one of the few times where it DOES make sense to set yourself on fire to keep them warm. I get the logic of needing room to get on one’s feet, but those kids still need care. Presumably their other parent is already sacrificing to pick up the slack.

[anon743448]

While dramatic, and sometimes necessary to set yourself on fire but most of the times your children will be better off if you push through the storm without burning yourself. They will suffer cold a little longer but watching your parent burn to death will scar them for life.

And that is the problem with child support system. It is ready to burn the father as the first option instead of last resort.

[phendrenad2]

This whole thread is a masterclass on why having children is a bad idea in our society. Yikes.

[atoav]

If you added a person to the world you're responsible for them. Especially if you're not putting in the day to day work of raising a kid and someone else is.

Don't want a kid? Use contraceptives. But do not blame it on the government that you now are responsible for another person. Santed a kid but realized the person you have been with isn't for you? Well then it was probably too early to get a kid with them.

Amazing. Has US individualism become so extreme, that it can't even be expected from parents to stand in for their kids, till they are grown up? Yes, metaphorically good parents would set themselves on fire to warm their kids.

If you want to support poor parents the answer isn't "fuck their kids", the answer is "let the rest of us help them".

[liamwire]

If the alternative is that your kids go cold instead, let me be the first to offer you a match.

[immibis]

And what should that child do for warmth, when both of their parents are dead?

[ty6853]

Taxpayer. First for welfare, then the prison. Maybe that's the point, remove the father from the kids life, subtract enough money he can never fully stand back up, dad is now broke and out the picture and the kid without money or a fatherly role model. More fodder for gangs, the prison system, and exploited manual labor.

[cafard]

Did his Ask mention child support?