[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?

[waste_monk]

>Is this reasonable though? Going from one household to two households raises expenses. People also just go through bad times, mental troubles, skills atrophy.

These sorts of things are accounted for when calculating child support obligations, and in any case judges are not computers and can use their discretion in such matters. As long as you're operating in good faith you shouldn't have any issues. I was specifically referring to incidents where someone is wilfully disobeying the child support order, such as by quitting their job to work for cash 'under the table' so they don't have any official income to garnish.

>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?

It's not about buying nice things, it's about making sure the child is not disadvantaged by the separation of the parents. That means keeping the same standard of food availability, clothing, access to education, and so on.

Think of the reverse perspective - is it fair for a child to have to, for example, give up after school sports, because one of their parents decided that they would prefer not to pay child support? Or be forced to change schools and lose their social group because tuition is unaffordable on a single income?

[imtringued]

>Think of the reverse perspective - is it fair for a child to have to, for example, give up after school sports, because one of their parents decided that they would prefer not to pay child support?

This is backwards. You're ignoring that the divorce has to be initiated in the first place and that divorce usually results in the removal of custody by the father and thereby creates an obligation to pay child support on the side of the father. Therefore divorce is causal. A desire to not pay child support does not lead to a child having to give up after school sports in the absence of divorce.

So let's replace what you said with reality:

>Think of the reverse perspective - is it fair for a child to have to, for example, give up after school sports, because their parents divorced? Or be forced to change schools and lose their social group because tuition is unaffordable on a single income?

Yes it is fair, because the divorce was initiated despite the expectation of these outcomes. If a man or woman initiates divorce, they must have had a good reason to do so and we should not question that reason by arguing that school sports or tuition are more important than the reason for divorce.

[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.

[waste_monk]

Sometimes there is no perfect solution. The court also has to take practicality into consideration.

The welfare of the child is often best served by allocating custody such that a child can stay at one residence most of the time (with regular visitation to the other parent to maintain the relationship), so that the stability of the child's living situation is not disturbed by having to constantly switch between two residences, having their school routine and social life disrupted, etc.

Also, custody split is only part of the issue. Supposing parent A earns 2x parent B's income, they should still be paying child support even if custody is 50:50, so that the same standard is maintained across both households.

[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.

[waste_monk]

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

Which is what happened, after they got in contact with the judge who had the authority to do so.

[lukan]

He was handcuffed and put into prison. In my world it is outrageous that this happened at all and it counts only a bit, that he was released that evening.

[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.