Strollerderby : child support

Mom Uses Breastfeeding as Weapon in Custody Battle

JeanneSager — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:01:00 GMT

The story is full of bad breastfeeding puns (that, honestly cracked me up), but an interesting case came up in the Globe and Mail this weekend. A mom has made her breastfeeding schedule so rigorous that the ex-boyfriend who fathered their child has been essentially totally cut off from spending any time with his daughter.

A judge has decided enough is enough. Either wean your child or start pumping honey, because Daddy's got to have a go.

Jennifer Johne and Carl Cavannah were together only briefly, but their relationship resulted in the birth of a little girl in June 2006. Although the couple was broken up, Cavannah made it clear he wanted to be in their daughter's life, even quitting his job so he could move closer to Johne and the little girl. He volunteered (volunteered!) to pay child support, and bought books on parenting.

But Johne told him he couldn't take the little girl anywhere, because she needed be with mom to be breastfed. The Globe and Mail cites an e-mail from Johne to Cavannah that makes it pretty clear she was about to sway on the issue: "A baby belongs with its mother, and if you had an understanding of the needs of a fully breast-fed baby and truly had [her] interests at heart, you would not be bringing this subject up again."

Now with the baby ~~facing~~ past her second birthday, the date the World Health Organization suggests breastfeeding up to, a judge has said it's over. Johne can breastfeed her toddler if she wants to, but she has to do it via pumped milk, so Cavannah can spend some real time with his daughter.

Frankly, I'm surprised he waited this long to "bring this subject up again." Because as wonderful as breastfeeding is (and this is very definitely not a breastfeeding vs. formula post), it's also pretty darn great for a child to have their biological parent who WANTS to be in the picture and has demonstrated themselves to be a a willing and able participant in their life. If anything, this mother is proving not how important it is to breastfeed but the theories of those women who would say breastfeeding chains them to their child.

Because while there are the bonding elements of breastfeeding, the larger part of the argument has always been that breastmilk itself is healthier than formula. So pumping and handing it over to her ex-boyfriend to feed their daughter would still make this child a "full breast-fed baby," albeit one who had the opportunity to bond with both her mother AND her father during her formative years.

Johne actually works in a daycare (which enabled her to keep her daughter around her so constantly), where she sees perfectly healthy and able children who are not attached to the mother's breast constantly.

What irks me about this story? This is a woman who has put breastfeeding above everything else. She's taken "breast is best" to an extreme that's unhealthy, and makes a bad name for breastfeeders everywhere.

Image: EcoStreet

Also on Babble:

The Backlash to Breast is Best

King of the Deadbeat Dads?

Amy Kuras — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:29:00 GMT

Back off laydeees – Thomas Frazier may be a reasonably good looking fellow, but he’d be a bad bet.

Why? He’s allegedly fathered 14 children by 13 different women, and paid not a dime in child support for any of them. According to the Genesee County Friend of the Court here in Michigan, he owes $500,000-plus in child support. Yep, half a million bucks.

But poor Thomas – he’s just looking for love. He calls himself just a victim -- of a system that slammed him with debt for some kids he claims are not his and “the victim of a poor upbringing that he said caused him to seek affection from older women.”

"I tried to find someone who would love me for me," Frazier told the Flint Journal.

Awww. Poor baby. Wonder what kind of quality upbringing the kids he’s brought into the world are getting with no child support at all?

To be fair, he claims that only three of the 14 children the courts have him down as fathering are actually his. As for the others, he claims that women who he dated tagged him falsely as the father and then gave a false address for him so he never was notified to challenge paternity. Yes, somehow a dozen or so women all had the exact same idea. And I haven’t been in this situation, but I believe there’s no statute of limitations on challenging paternity.

Better yet? When he was picked up in Iowa he was driving a Mercedes and had $5,000 and plane tickets to Florida in his pocket – and yet is allegedly unemployed.

At this point he’s facing 90 days in jail or he’s got to come up with almost $30,000 as a down payment on the half-million he owes.

Lovely. Mothers of boys, share this story with your sons when it’s time to have the condom conversation.

Child Support Suffers In A Recession, Too

Kate Tuttle — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:02:00 GMT

A bad economy tends to spawn domino effects of harm. As workers lose their jobs, the folks who depend on their paycheck -- whether the bank that owns their mortgage or retail store owners or service employees -- all take a hit as well. Least able to protect themselves, and wholly unable to find another source of support, are the children of laid-off workers. As a recent article in the New York Times suggests, the picture can get especially complicated when the paycheck that's lost was formerly provided by a non-custodial parent in the form of child support.

Since the beginning of this year, New York's family court system has been deluged by requests for reduction in child support orders by parents (mostly fathers) who have lost their jobs and can no longer meet their mandated obligations. In many if not most cases, judges have no choice but to reduce the support order until the father can find a way to pay. Needless to say, this doesn't always sit well with the custodial parents (usually mothers) who have to figure out how to provide food and shelter and clothing on less and less money. It's a bad scene all around.

Some of the stories out of New York are utterly astonishing, like the couple formerly making a combined $400,000 a year who both lost their jobs simultaneously, and are now trying to live on $800 a month in unemployment benefits. But most are not nearly as rich to begin with, like the man making just over $16K a year (how do you live on that in New York?) and required to send 23% of his salary to support his child in Georgia. The mother is angry, the father is angry, both are broke and, of course, it's the child who suffers most of all.

Even those of us not currently factoring child support into our monthly responsibilities are finding ourselves having to make choices in terms of what we can and can't afford for our kids these days. I know I'm not alone in weighing the yoga classes, summer camp, and new bike ideas more seriously than ever. I want this economic nightmare to end for all kinds of reasons, but most of all so that our kids don't have to worry about money -- or, in the very worst cases, about food and shelter.

More by this author:

Late-Term Abortion Provider on Trial in Kansas

Boomer Grandmothers: Out Of Control?

Move Over, Booties! Here Come Knitted Boobies

Think Your Baby's Car Seat Is Safe? Think Again

Do We All Have a Right to Procreate?

Miriam Axel-Lute — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 14:48:00 GMT

Though we would rarely admit it, most of us, upon hearing about some abusive situation, have muttered about requiring a license to parent or "fixing" the offenders so at least no child will have to go through that again. But when push comes to shove would we really think either was a good idea?

Carter Dillard, writing in the Georgia Law Review, is not exactly recommending either (in fact, he speaks, rightly, of parental licensing schemes as "comical"). But he is, very seriously, arguing that there should be no fundamental right to procreate, that there is a duty on prospective parents to be "fit," and that courts should have the right to issue no-procreation orders in certain limited circumstances.

In the narrowest case that Dillard focuses on, it's hard to argue: If, due to egregious harm to previous children, a no-custody order has already been issued, such that any child born is immediately taken into state custody, wouldn't it be better for all to prevent such a pregnancy in the first place with a "no-procreate" order?

Trouble is, this seems to me almost as rife with problems as parental licensing. Much as Dillard wants to separate out the principle from how it would be implemented, I can't.

Dillard never manages to acknowledge that the state does a pretty awful job in most cases of determining "fitness" now, and often gets it wrong (in both directions). Some of that can't be avoided: We need to be able to take kids out of danger, even if we suck at it. But I heard in Dillard's writing a disturbing willingness to expand the definition of "fitness" tests to include finances (how much money is "enough"? does it matter how you spend it?), "pending neglect cases" (and if they were ruled to be unfounded, as many are?). It just seems like a clear slippery slope to pre-emptive sterilization of people who are different, poor, etc.

But even if we do set aside implementation for a moment, Dillard's argument that his "no-procreate" orders could be good for everyone by shifting resources from helping kids who have already been harmed to prevention rings a bit hollow.

For that to work, the no-procreate orders would actually have to substantially reduce the number of children born into abusive situations. But only a tiny fraction of the worst cases already have no-custody orders. And even then, how to ensure the order works? Foricble abortion? Sterilization? (Long sordid history of that already) Court-ordered Norplant (serious side effects for many people)? Criminalizing sex? Imprisoning people? Sending them to a convent?

The answer, of course, is you don't. You just say it, and if it's violated, it changes to a "no-custody" order and unspecified penalties are applied after the fact. Could that have a deterrant effect? Unlikely. At least for women, if carrying a pregnancy you know you're going to have to give up isn't a deterrant, it's hard to know what would work better. And most men in this situation are unable to pay the child support they already owe and any other penalties may suck for them, but it'll make it even less likely that they end up paying. Pregnancies are not always preventable, and in stressed families like this, are also rarely planned.

Would the orders make a point? Perhaps. But they're not going to make some huge difference in the number of kids who are born to "unfit" parents or who end up abused.

Here's what might work better:

If you want to put resources into prevention—of unwise pregnancies and of abuse—do it. Don't wait for some neat legal principle to make you feel better about it. Fund health care, birth control, abortion, good sex ed, parenting education, respite services, and domestic violence response, etc. and improve access to them. There's plenty of info out there about how to do these things well.
If you want to ensure that babies born to parents with a history of serious enough abuse that they already have a no-custody order in place aren't bounced around from foster home to foster home and maybe-maybe-not back to birth parents sometime (which I agree is not a good plan), make no-custody orders include automatic termination of parental rights for any child conceived after they are issued and allow the kid a permanent adoptive home from day one. It's still subject to errors in judgment, but at least you know it'll have real results. (And, frankly, it might be more of a deterrant than some random legal penalty.) (Note: This suggestion works when both bio parents have the no-custody order. What is the proper response when it's only one of them who is subject to such? I don't know.)

Ick.

Photo by walknboston.

More by this author:

"Dads" Want DNA Testing in Kansas

JeanneSager — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:28:00 GMT

Christopher Sprowson's ex-wife had an affair that resulted in a baby. Now the State of Kansas wants him to pay for a child genetic testing proves isn't his because he's the "presumed father."

A bit presumptuous, aren't they?

Sprowson and his first wife divorced when the child, now thirteen, was just a baby. He's never had a relationship with the child, nor has the mother called for one. Why should she? He isn't the boy's father.

Kansas officials stepped in when the ex-wife filed for welfare.The state automatically seeks child support for any parent receiving public assistance to reduce the state's burden. Unable to provide a name for a father of her boy, the state put the blame on Sprowson. When DNA proved otherwise, a judge said it didn't matter – as her husband at the time of the baby's birth, he had to pay some $10,000.

But Sprowson and wife Karey have three kids of their own to support, and they have made a bid to the state legislature to change the laws, allowing men to use DNA evidence to prove once and for all that they aren't responsible for kids with whom they share no blood relation.

Critics have said this will pave the way for stepfathers everywhere to shirk their responsiblities to their stepkids. The way I see it, stepkids are just that - "step" kids. Short of a marriage to the child's biological parent, they aren't that child's parent. So why should they be responsible for their care outside of the marriage? Their argument is the old standby - it takes more than biology to make a parent, and I agree with them. But that's a saying used to describe the non-biological parents who nurture children, not one that can be supplied to defend thrusting someone else's responsibilities on men like Christopher Sprowson. He never nurtured the child because he had no reason to - he wasn't the boy's father in any sense of the word, biological or emotional.

I don't fault the state for trying to reduce a burden on taxpayers by requiring non-custodial parents to step in to care for a child rather than the state. But you can't legislate family ties into existence anymore than you can force an angry spouse to accept their cheating partner's love child into their heart.

Give the guys their DNA test, Kansas. And let the real fathers stand up.

Image: NIH

Michigan to Parents: Get Married, Or Pay Up

Miriam Axel-Lute — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 15:00:00 GMT

The state of Michigan says Gary Johnson owes them $3,800 for the birth of his daughter. Unless, of course, he wants to actually marry her mother already.

How exactly do they rationalize this? Gary Johnson is not a deadbeat dad. He lives with Rebecca Witt, his daughter's mother, and they plan to marry someday, but they were hoping to wait until they were in a better financial position to do so. Right now, though, they're pretty poor, as evidenced by the fact that Witt was on Medicaid at the time of the birth. That's the payment that the state is trying to recoup from Johnson.

Now, I could understand if they thought the couple wasn't getting married in order to hide Johnson's income and qualify for Medicaid if they wouldn't otherwise. (I might argue, still, that that's the state's own fault for defining families the way they do, but I'd understand it from a self-interest perspective.) However, if they're willing to let him off the hook entirely if he just gets hitched, then clearly it's not just a matter of needing the money. Besides, the report I read made no mention of anything less than honest on the part of the couple.

It appears that this is one of those instances where the state has just decided it will help society to force people into legal marriage. For more examples, along with an explanation of why this is a dumb way to go about things, check out the splendidly named report Let them Eat Wedding Rings.

As for me, I might disagree with Witt about what constitutes a "really nice" wedding or how important it is, but I also understand wanting to make it special and not just exchange Cracker Jack rings in front of a judge. In fact, I think it comes down to this: Witt and Johnson appear to be (1) caring for their kid together (2) taking marriage seriously and (3) being prudent and trying to plan ahead rather than putting an expensive wedding on a credit card or something. Isn't that the sort of behavior Michigan ought to be supporting?

Image from Liam's Pictures from Old Books.

More by this author:

Florida Mulls "Deadbeat Dad" T-Shirts

JeanneSager — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:37:00 GMT

Just in case they're not shamed enough to be out doing community service, a Florida legislator thinks deadbeat parents should have to do it wearing clothes that tell the world they don't support their kids.

The bill introduced by Democratic State Sen. Mike Fasano would require deadbeat parents to spend a week on a work detail, sporting a shirt or pair of overalls that shares their crime with the whole world.

Although its still only in the "bill" phase (it's only just now being introduced in the state Senate), the goal is to have the punishment kick in after a deadbeat father's third appearance in court for his failure to pay. A Florida newspaper reporting on the story was unable to obtain comment from Fasano on how the law would affect deadbeat mothers.

Parents who don't support their kids are easy pickins', but I'm not sure shame is going to work with these people. They can look their kids in the eye in a courtroom and still ignore the court order; they're not exactly the emotional type.

There's also the question of what this does to the kids. It's bad enough knowing mom or dad doesn't bother sending money to pay for your food and clothing, but kids with a deadbeat parent generally don't like to have that news spread around. In smaller towns, all it takes is one kid from school seeing your Dad out picking litter with an orange t-shirt for the news to be spread all around school.

It's a good idea in theory - nail these crappy parents to the wall. But in reality, I don't see it doing much.

Image: myspace

Should Out-of-Work Parents Get Off Child Support Hook?

Having a Kid Alone? Don't Tell Me Why I Have it Better

Dad Finds Daughter Abducted During Bosnian War

Should Out-of-Work Parents Get Off Child Support Hook?

JeanneSager — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:25:00 GMT

I kind of felt bad for the Dad who wrote to the Houston Chronicle law advice columnist, asking if he could get a break on his child support payments while he's out of work. Um, NOT!

Yeah, yeah, we know about the economy. But while I understand it's tough to pay your bills when you're out of a job, cutting expenses doesn't mean cutting out the kids.

Says the columnist, "Maybe. You can hire a lawyer and seek court approval for a modification of your court-ordered child support payments."

He's quick to advise against it, pushing for mediation with the ex-wife and warning that by the time the motion makes it through court, the dad could already be back in an office. If the ex can agree, if she can financially hold down the fort for awhile, if you can agree to make restitution later, that's one thing.

I'm appalled that a dad who insists he's "not a deadbeat," still doesn't understand that the responsibility of child support isn't about how much money you make. It's about supporting your child. Child support payments be set too high (yes, courts are imperfect, some lawyers are actually pretty sucky negotiators). But what about parents who are still together? When we lose our jobs, we don't get to outsource parenting our kids. We don't get to throw up our hands and say, "sorry, no buying groceries for you anymore." We scrimp, and we save, and we put our kids first because we are THEIR PARENTS.

When you're getting a divorce or separation, you tell your kids, "Mommy and Daddy still love you very much." You don't tell them, "out of sight, out of mind."

I have never been through the child support issue myself (knock wood), but I've watched a myriad of friends - male and female - navigate the system. They've complained about their ex or whined about what said ex was doing with the cash. But when asked if they would ever go back to fight the amount they pay, what one non-custodial parent had to say made a lot of sense. "If I was still able to live with my kids, I'd spend this money. I'd be buying food for their stomachs and putting clothes on their backs. They're my kids, and this is my job. Do I like handing the money over to the b-tch I was married to? I don't think of it that way. I think of it as being their Dad."

After all, that's why it's called child support - because you're supporting your child.

Image: Gotler

Stop Sending Palin Baby Presents

Court Bans Divorced Mom's Partner from Sleeping Over

Thrift Shops Struggle Under New Phthalate, Lead Ban

Kid Woos Prospective Foster Parents With Letters

When Every Day is Bring Your Kid to Work Day

Man Forced to Pay Child Support for Another Man's Child

JeanneSager — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 14:37:00 GMT

All Walter Andre Sharpe Jr. did was sign for a certified letter. Considering the addressee was Andre Sharpe - not far off - could you blame him?

A judge in Pennsylvania did. He made Walter Andre Sharpe Jr. liable for child support for a little girl who's real father was Andre Sharpe. When Walter Sharpe couldn't keep up with the payments to support a child that wasn't even his? The state threw him in jail.

Walter Andre Sharp Jr. ignored the letter once he realized it wasn't really meant for him. The father of four from a previous marriage already paid child support to his ex-wife. But when neither he nor the real Andre Sharp showed up at a child support hearing to answer the letter, a judge put the onus on Walter Sharpe. He authorized Walter's wages be garnished - to pay not only new charges but more than $5,000 in back support. That was 2001.

Walter Sharpe applied several times for a paternity test to prove he wasn't the girl's father, but he was denied each time. Between 2001 and 2005, Walter Sharpe landed in jail for four separate six-month terms for falling behind on payments to support the little girl. He finally lost his job in 2005, but it would take another two years before the paternity order would be overturned. But as recently as two months ago, the state has still been denying him compensation for the $12,000 subtracted from his pay and sent the way of the real Andre Sharpe's baby mama's mother, the little girl's grandmother. Ironically, the real Sharpe says he's always supported his daughter. In fact, she's lived with him for the past four years.

The district attorney is finally investigating, but the president of the county where this happened is still putting at least a portion of the blame on Walter Sharpe, essentially for not being more proactive.

Since when should a man have to be more proactive in expecting NOT to pay child support for someone else's child? I admit there are plenty of deadbeat parents out there - and they deserve to be hunted down and made to support the child they helped create. HOWEVER, when a guy asks for a paternity test, a paternity test is in order. Who could really lose here? If the result is positive, the judge has even more support behind him or her in making a decision. If it's negative, well, you save a guy $12,000 and four years of his life spent in prison for a crime that he really couldn't have committed. Because how could you fail to pay child support you never owed in the first place?

Image: About

Dad Wants Daughter Back Despite Negative DNA Test

Male Blogger: Laboring Mom Not a 'True Emergency'

New Dad Forgives Guy Who Stole Camera With Birth Footage

Sperm Donor's Teen Daughter Finds Him on Myspace

Mom Sells Newborn Twins to Fund Liposuction

Hey Obama, Give This Kid an Interview!

Most Wanted Puts Deadbeat Dads . . . and One Mom Online

JeanneSager — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 15:02:00 GMT

If you're planning a divorce, you might want to move to the South. First it was Tennessee yanking fishing and hunting licenses from deadbeat parents. Now Virginia is placing parents who evade their child support responsibilities atop its Most Wanted criminals list.

They don't play in Dixie.

Pictures of eight deadbeat dads and one deadbeat mother are now posted online at the Virginia Department of Social Services website, along with their dates of birth, number of children, height, weight, occupation and last known address. It's like the list in the back of the newspaper for people who don't pay their property taxes . . . with pictures to double the laughs.

The crappiest dad of the year award goes to Joseph Hollenbach, a quality assurance inspector from Pennsylvania who owes more than $177,000 to his baby mama. The, "Look They Photoshopped My Giant Head Onto a Puny Body and All I Got Was a Spot on the Most Wanted List" award goes to Jad Salah Amra, who we can add to the list of shyster car salesmen with his refusal to pay more than $97,000 to support his three kids.

Want to see the whole list? Be sure to check out Bobby Joe Cannon Jr.'s grinning high school yearbook photo. Hey Class of 1990, look at him now!

Image: Revengemark

Don't Pay Child Support? Bid the Gun Rack Bye Bye

Dad To Step-Daughter: Clean Your Room or I'll Lock Us All In Here

Five-Year-Old Catches STD From Dad's Towel?

They Say: Dads Cheat, but Not for Sex

Don't Pay Child Support? Bid the Gun Rack Bye Bye

JeanneSager — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 20:57:00 GMT

If you teach a man to fish, he may eat for a lifetime - but that doesn't mean his kids will. Which is why the State of Tennessee is looking to revoke 1,200-some fishing and hunting licenses from deadbeat moms and dads.

In the last few days, letters were sent out to more than 20,0000 residents across the state with a warning - pay in full within 90 days or hand over their recreational, driver's or professional license. This isn't the first year state officials have taken advantage of the fact that the state issues licenses for everything from driving to casting a line. State and federal law both allow for social services to revoke any state-issued license as a means to punish parents who aren't living up to their court-ordered obligation to help support their children. Unfortunately, it doesn't always work. Approximately 7,000 licenses were yanked last year because the parents failed to heed the warning.

This time around, almost 18,000 residents stand to lose their driver's licenses, another 1,200 their right to hunt and fish. If they aren't willing to feed and clothe their own kids, I find it hard feel bad for someone who's been told they can't take off on a boat for a few days or go out to camp with the boys. Although there are people who hunt and fish to feed their families, I live in a rural area where I've watched the same people who tell me they need to hunt to eat plunk down a couple hundred on a brand new rifle or fancy fly-fishing reel. Besides, these men and women AREN'T feeding their families, that's the reason they got themselves into this mess in the first place. The state may even be doing them the favor of helping them save a little money this year. That's a couple hundred that could buy a nice hunk of cow from the grocery store and a pile of produce at the farmers' market.

I am a little wary of the plan to revoke 400 professional licenses, the state-issued permission for people to work in fields including healthcare and real estate. If you're trying to get someone to pay their child support, does it make sense to essentially put them out of business?

Image: Timatteo

Source: Crossville Chronicle

Government Seizes Newborn from Mentally Disabled Mom 22 Hours After Birth

Supreme Court to Father: No, You Can't Circumcise a 13-year-old

Mob Mol Who Smuggled Sperm Says Prison System Hates Her Child for Being Born

Texas Judge Orders Woman to Stop Bearing Children

Goodbye Plasma Screen Hello Child Support!

SunnyChanel — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 23:56:00 GMT

Across this great land of ours, there is a whole slew of bummed out deadbeat moms and pops. Why? Because those much coveted economic stimulus checks from the government are “are being intercepted and funneled toward the support of their children.”

The Associated Press found that more than 1.4 million of the stimulus checks (a total of about $831 million) have been seized by child support agencies and being held for families who are owed funds.

Sure the M.I.A moms and dads may have wanted to spend this windfall on baubles or booze, but most would agree that the fruit of their loins really should come first. Sadly, the kids aren’t always getting the money. It may take a while for families to get their hands on it, if it all. “The intercepted checks in Massachusetts, for example, are deposited with the state and held for 180 days to allow the parent to file an appeal. If the appeal is denied, the money is turned over to the parent who has custody — in most cases, the mother — unless she has been on public assistance, in which case the funds can go back to the state and federal government to reimburse the taxpayers.”

How are these checks being diverted? “States submit the names and Social Security numbers of deadbeat parents to the IRS, which crosschecks those names against the lists of taxpayers receiving stimulus checks. The IRS then sends the deadbeat parents' checks straight to state child support agencies.”

Sorry deadbeats, big brother is watching you. For more of the story check out the complete AP piece here.

Should Child Support Slackers Be Shamed Online?

Jessica Ashley (Sassafrass) — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 23:27:00 GMT

Wisconsin State Rep. Steve Wieckert, R-Appleton, wants to put child support slackers online in an attempt to shame parents into paying up with a little interwebs intimidation. Before you go cheering on the Republican from the Fox Valley, take note that a mother who claims she's owed $37,000 in child support and interest by her daughter's father is the brains behind the legislation, which will be proposed this month.

After many attempts to recover the child supported owed to her, custodial parent Julie Jentz read an article about how successful a state website worked in recovering delinquent tax funds. She thought the idea would convert well in pressuring child support non-payers into settling their debts. According to the fired up state rep who turned Jentz's idea into proposed legislation, $3 billion is owed in child support in Wisconsin alone.

My thought on this is Hey, whatever it takes. Sure, complicated situations surround every split parenting relationship, but at some point -- as Jentz seems to know all too well -- the pressure needs to be increased. Hopefully, measures like this site won't be too late to get Jentz what she's owed to fairly care for her child.

Two Lesbian Moms Seek Child Support (And Make the Rest of Us Look Bad)

Erin White — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 16:30:00 GMT

While I hesitate to bring attention to the absurd behaviors of my people, I just couldn't miss this opportunity to remind all those Strollerderby readers who got knocked up with a little help from a friend that before you busy yourselves printing up the “I Love My Moms” onesies, you need to find a good lawyer. And when you have taken the necessary steps to protect yourselves, your child, and your donor, you need to never, ever do what these moms just did. Because it gives the rest of us a bad name.

I believe that one of the greatest gifts the lesbian and gay parenting boom has given mainstream parenting culture is a glimpse into all the various ways adults and children can be family to each other. A known sperm donor can be an integral (or peripheral but still meaningful) part of a child’s life. So can a birth mother. But they should not be seen as a source of income. To demand child support from a sperm donor after 18 years (and over 10 years with no contact) is ridiculous. And while I would like to say that I believe these mothers have a right to do whatever they feel they must to take care of their child, I think they also have a responsibility not to bring negative national media attention onto the issue of conceiving children with a known sperm donor—an act that the vast majority of lesbian mamas in the US handle with extreme caution and respect.

Deadbeat Pimp

Matt Wood — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:38:00 GMT

Sometimes, you do what you gotta do, especially if you have eight kids by seven baby mommas. Let's say, for instance, you're really good with computers, you know a couple attractive women, and you owe $70,000 grand in child support. That's right, you start an internet prostitution ring!

Oh, if it were all so simple and pimps were cool and cuddly like Huggy Bear. Unfortunately, investigators allege that the 26-year-old wannabe Bishop Don Magic Juan from Everett, Washington, "controlled at least two women through intimidation and violence." He rented hotel rooms for tricks and advertised his services on Craigslist. Police think he may have earned as much as $300,000 in the past two years, but kept the cash in boxes at home because he was afraid if he put it in a bank, the state would catch up to him and make him pay.

The story has all the unsavory hallmarks of prostitution that have nothing to do with leopard print and gold chalices. The man allegedly held two women against their will, carried a gun, beat them regularly, and threatened more violence if they ever left. Police finally pinned him down when a mother found her daughter's picture on Craigslist, advertising sex.

Deadbeat Parents Put on Pizza Boxes

Stefania Pomponi Butler (CityMama) — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 18:01:00 GMT

Customers of some suburban Cincinnati pizza restaurants aren't just getting a side of ranch dressing with their pizza, they're also getting wanted posters of deadbeat parents affixed to their pizza boxes.

Local officials, trying to collect cumulative past-due child support of $106 billion, realized that parents who are running from the law rather than pay child support probably aren't dining out, they're ordering in. They see this innovative approach as a way to put pressure on parents to do the right thing.

Authorities contacted local pizzerias about the program and three restaurants agreed to participate leading to one arrest so far. Restaurants claim no customers have complained and most "think it's a good idea."

A local fathers' rights attorney disagrees, calling the tactic "horrible." He feels it can have a devastating effect on kids to see their dad's faces on a pizza box. More devasting than having a father (or mother) who doesn't want anything to do with you? I think not.

Kids? What Kids?: Dad Who Owes $60,000 in Child Support Busted

Stefania Pomponi Butler (CityMama) — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:03:00 GMT

A New Hampshire father who went into hiding rather than pay child support is back in the state and facing charges that he owes his kids more than $60,000. "Father of the Year" Brian Sears chose to lay low in Florida rather than support his two kids.

Sears told the judge that he has worked as a construction project manager, but is now homeless and out of work now because of a back injury. The judge said: Yeah, whatever. Find a job where you don't use your back, and get back to court later in the month so we can figure out how you're going to pay down your tab. Can you put something on it?

Or something like that.

Finally! A Good Reason to Move to Utah: Proposed Child Support Increases

Rachael Brownell (Redsy) — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 19:50:00 GMT

Bobby Brown isn't the only non-custodial parent feeling the heat these days. Noncustodial parents will likely see a substantial increase in child support in the State of Utah if SB23 passes the Utah State Senate. States vary widely on their methodologies to determine child support and Utah hasn't typically been the most aggressive in making sure child support amounts reflect current economic data and the true costs of raising children.

So this could be a sign of things to come for other states. I hope so. Non-custodial parents (frequently fathers) have real complaints about the difficulty of being treated like "just a paycheck" and the drain on their incomes of paying child support. I'm sympathetic. To a point. Obviously, the interested parties in cases of dual custody where child support is at stake have very different viewpoints.

Since my ex- and I decided to put aside our differences and have meetings to discuss the real financial needs of our twin daughters, the whole arrangement has become so much more harmonious than in the early days when child support was used more as a weapon against each other. Ultimately, people can save themselves and their children much heartache by trying to mediate disputes out of court and in a more cooperative frame of mind. This is obviously much easier said than done, especially if your ex is a complete ass.

Bobby Brown Jailed Until He Pays $19K in Back Child Support

Alisyn — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 19:03:00 GMT

~~Musician~~ ~~Rapper~~ Whitney Houston's estranged husband Bobby Brown was arrested in New Jersey on Saturday, and will remain in jail until he pays Kim Ward, the mother of two of his teenage children, $19,000 in back child support. "Although this agreement was put in place when he was Bobby Brown the star, this agreement is being enforced when he is not always able to find work," a Atlanta attorney told The Associated Press (Bobby's a GA resident). "He hasn't made an album in quite some years."

What, no residuals from "Tender Roni?"

Bobby was arrested during his daughter's high school cheerleading competition, and is expected to remain in jail this week, until... well, probably until Whitney bails his broke ass out.

Can you imagine how embarrassed his daughter must've been when the cops had to schlep her deadbeat dad out of the auditorium? Probably as embarrassed she was when cops did the exact same thing last March (except Daddy was arrested for motor vehicle violations that time). The poor girl.

Another Non-Father Emasculated By Support Court: Pay Up or Go to Jail

Karen Murphy — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 14:09:00 GMT

In yet another stroke of judicial brilliance, Missouri resident David Salazar lost his appeal with a Missouri court this week and has been ordered to pay over $13000 in back child support or face a felony charge punishable by four years in prison, all because he and his estranged wife were too poor to get a divorce before she had a baby with another man. Even though both Mr. Salazar and the child's mother have testified that they separated well before she became pregnant and that he is not the child's father, the court would have none of it because Mr. Salazar, who didn't graduate from high school and likely was even unaware of what was taking place, failed to contest the original determination of support within the stipulated time.

I'm all for child support. I'm even, or my children are, a recipient of it. The present disparity in incomes between me and The Ex makes this necessary. But! Come on, court system! Rules are one thing and are useful guidelines in most cases, but lighten up here! There's a human element here, not to mention an element of common sense. And there is such a thing as following rules right into the ground. What about the fact that a hospital worker insisted Mr. Salazar's estranged wife use his name on the baby's birth certificate? Or the fact that the state Child Support Enforcement Division named Mr. Salazar the father without performing any testing?

It's all in the name of doing "what's best for the child". But who gets to determine that? Are you willing to allow your state court system determine what's best for your child?

Kansas May Extend Child Support to Age 23

Karen Murphy — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 12:51:00 GMT

The new Kansas state motto: "Don't Be a Divorced Dad Unless You're a Millionaire". Oh. That's probably too long to fit on a license plate, isn't it?

Actually, I jest. I think Kansas' new proposed bill to extend the age of children receiving child support is a step in the right direction. The bill would require a parent to pay child support until the kids are 23 if they go to college. No college? Then the buck stops at 18, like usual. Still, this gives custodial parents a much-needed leg up just when they need it most, when the kid goes off to college and starts incurring those $30,000 annual tuition bills. And it's a nice incentive to get kids to go to college.

Another Sperm Donor Gets Stuck Paying Child Support

Karen Murphy — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 20:54:00 GMT

Hello, court system? Uh, could you please review your purpose, and get back to me? I'm really wondering what the hell you're doing these days. To wit:

In another strike against justice for sperm donors, a Chicago man was "duped" into signing paternity papers after providing sperm for the insemination of his ex-girlfriend, and after two years of court hijinks, has now agreed (read: was railroaded into agreeing) to provide "limited financial support" for the twins. Which includes sending them to college. Hey, nice work if you can get it!

He didn't even have sex and he's still paying for it.

Thanks, court system! I can hardly wait to see what you come up with next.

Man Must Pay Child Support for Son of a Sperm Bank

Karen Murphy — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 14:33:00 GMT

Through my own dealings with the domestic relations court system this past couple of years, I know that the system is pretty well screwed up. And as screwed up as it's been for me, I'm glad I'm not this guy. He's been ordered to pay child support for a child which everybody agrees isn't his, a child conceived after his divorce from a woman who subsequently was inseminated by an anonymous sperm-bank donation. So even though both the ex-husband and the ex-wife agree that "that the unborn child is not the biological child of the husband," and they agree that "ex-husband should in 'no way be financially responsible in any way' for the child or his ex-wife", he still has to pay.

Because someone has to, I guess. And because the judge said the parties' agreement was "against public policy". Public policy??! What about stupidity? Which seems to be at work here.

Arkansas Court Rules That Non-Father Must Pay Child Support

JasonAvant — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 15:00:00 GMT

Anthony Parker is not a father. According to his lawyer, Anthony Parker has never claimed to be a father. Yet an Arkansas judge has decided that Anthony Parker must pay child support.

I'll be honest with you, dear readers. It's about 9:00 and my wife and I just got back from a nice dinner, during which many glasses of wine were consumed. Yeah, I'm a little drunk. This article, it confuses me. Maybe it's the vino. So I gotta ask you - is that article fer reals? It's not an Onion piece? I didn't fall through some temporal rift and end up in the future, on April 1st? There wasn't some bizarre computer glitch that caused the Arkansas court system to reunite O.J.'s jury for another trial? (On the other hand - $24 bucks a week for child support? What the hell does this kid eat? Tic Tacs?)

Apparently, Parker had ignored the state's Office of Child Support Enforcement's paternity complaint, filed in 2002; the state went after him after he failed to pay the initial judgment, and he further buggered himself by failing to appear in court. The state garnished his wages, and even though Parker ultimately proved, via a paternity test, that he was not the father the state's Supreme Court ruled that he still owes in excess of $4,000 in back child support. For a child that's not his. If that seems a little bass-ackwards, well, it's Arkansas. One of course wonders where the actual father is during all of this. Maybe it's my West Coast liberal mentality, but shouldn't he be the one to pay for child support? Parker's lawyer's have released a photo of the man, and though as an objective journalist I really shouldn't get involved, my conscience won't allow me to turn my back. Please notify Arkansas authorities immediately if you encounter this man.

In Minnesota, Child Support Will Be Determined By Both Parents' Incomes

thezeroboss — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 12:04:00 GMT

And yea and verily was there much rejoicing amongst the future non-custodial parents of Minnesota, who are getting a belated gift from St. Nick on January 1st. As of 2007, all new child support cases in the state will be calculated on both parents' income. In the past, Minnesota (like most states) based child support only on the income of the non-custodial parent.

The article in the Winona Daily News has an open comments thread, with parents on both sides of the aisle spouting off about the change. It's hard to gather a consensus from the thread as many of those commenting, sadly, are morons, but it seems that opinion is fairly split, with some custodial parents arguing that their deadbeat spouse shouldn't get a "break" on support when she has all the burden of child care. Which is a fair cop: if a dad, for example, doesn't ever see his kids or take an active role in raising them, why offset the bastard's support? Hell, make him pay double for the luxury of being able to take an uninterrupted bubble bath!

Good thing I never became a family court judge. I'd be shot dead before my first term expired.