AnonymousUser

notasheep

Comment history

  • notasheep 

    It is great that some businesses are "interested" in Victoria. I'm sure partly because of the incentives they would receive. BUT, what I am disappointed in is that more local companies are not being used to build for these companies. If you are going to give a business an incentive to come to our town...at least make it mandatory that the business MUST use local contractors/businesses for all aspects of construction. I don't care if its the bigger companies here in town or the smaller ones...just as long as they are LOCAL.

    Flag this comment

  • notasheep 

    I've been away...so I just got back to reading the rest of these posts...rachelj...umm you said "I cannot believe anyone can complain about having to be financially responsible for their children." But isn't that what BOTH sides are doing? The fact of the matter is...the system is broken...the American family is hurting because of it...and the best interest of the child has been replaced by: The best interest of .

    Flag this comment

  • notasheep 
  • notasheep 

    Again...each case is different. There are always 3 sides to the story, yours, mine, and the truth. And the truth is...it's a BROKEN system. There are as many stories of noncustodial parents being wronged as there is the custodial parents being wronged. So what is the common denominator?? The policy itself.

    Flag this comment

  • notasheep 

    rachelj - I'm sorry you are having such a tough time. I know that raising kids on ANY budget can be tough and stressful. But here is kind of what I was trying to explain: Should the AG's Office be tough on everyone just because your ex doesn't pay like he should? Should every non custodial parent be treated like a "selfish" ex when they can't pay?

    There are individual circumstances to each and every case. One person should not have to carry the burden of another person's mistakes and abuses.

    Flag this comment

  • notasheep 

    I'm sorry..i removed a couple posts because I get a little "worked up" over all of this. I have read many cases (much more than I care to admit to), and done lots of research on both sides of Child Support Enforcement Policies.

    The judges have guidelines that they can follow. But they do not have to, and sometimes its easier for them to believe whatever the AG says over the parents...its just the way it is. The AG's Office sees LOTS of deadbeats. So, like with other jobs,they have become a little numb and disenchanted. The assistant AGs treat most non custodial parents that come through there as deadbeats. But, that is not always the case. The AG likes to throw around something called "intentional underemployment". This allows the AG to base the amount of child support on what they think the noncustodial parent has the "ability" to make, not what they actually do. But most of this is neither here nor there, and I could argue and throw facts and statistics around FOREVER.

    The biggest problem, I think, is that an issue like Child Support is quite objective. It just depends on if you are on the receiving end or the paying end. What needs to happen is BOTH sides need to step back and look at the big picture. This needs to be an EQUAL system...50/50. You were right in saying that it takes two to have a child, two should support it...but you left out...two should support it EQUALLY. I do believe that the AGs office has its best interest in mind, not the noncustodial parent's, not the custodial parent's and not the child's.

    Child support was initially set up to collect money from noncustodial parents with children/families that were currently receiving federal assistance. Today, nearly half of the cases involve families that never have received assistance and currently are not receiving assistance. The current system is destroying what little is left of American Families after a divorce, seperation, etc.

    Flag this comment

  • notasheep 

    This comment was removed by the user.

    Flag this comment

  • notasheep 

    This comment was removed by the user.

    Flag this comment

  • notasheep 

    This comment was removed by the user.

    Flag this comment

  • notasheep 

    823-Dead Beats? Yes, some might be dead beats...but many aren't. They are forced into being delinquent in payments due to the fact that the AG tries to get AS much money out of them as possible. The reason is the AG gets "incentives" from the federal government based on several things...one of which is the amount of money collected for child support. AND, whether they go to jail or not is not dependent on the amount they owe...it depends on how hard the AG pushes the judge and whether or not the "baby momma (or daddy in some cases)" wants them there. Because no matter if they owe $1 or $10,000, they are not being jailed for that, they are being jailed for contempt of court, because they signed a court order...an order that they have no choice but to sign.

    Flag this comment

Previous