Government Assistance My Butt!

[Queen Spirit]

I know most people dont talk about this but am I the only one with this problem?
My ex finely makes a child support payment for the first time in over a year & DCSE (division of child support Enforcement) takes the whole thing, my kids get nothing! All because I got Government Assistance 5 years ago when I went threw my divorce. Can they do this?
Let me know what you think. If you want to read more about it check my journal under Lego My Kids Money  

[Noir Resurection]

Personally I think any type of government assistance is wrong and should be taken off the map. Now as for them taking all of you money tats really nothing new anymore. Our government just looks for more ways to take away our money. It also depends on how old your ids are and if there is something that may of have been done that may reflect off of that child support. Still the government just needs to stop taking off money from all of us because thats the reason that many are going through money issues.  

[Harbone]

I'm not much of an expert. But I did work for the El Paso County Department of Human Services for a while.

You may need to contact your case worker and find out if any changes have occurred to your case.

I know, in Colorado, we have this HORRIBLE system (instituted by Governor Owens) called CBMS, the Colorado Benefits Management System, which sometimes updates itself in such a way to completely screw over our clientelle. It can take days to figure out what's wrong with a particularly complicated case, because ONE TINY LITTLE CHANGE can create a kind of cascade of interrelated information, causing a complete reversal of your "OK" state in the computer system.

This often happens when older records are being retired or updated, so I could bet that happened to you. The computer may now think you're a bad person who tried to cheat the system and try to get its money back (which recent social services law says it CAN do.)

See, if you received federal aid, such as food stamps, and, at any point, it was deemed you did not qualify for that aid (like, later on, a mistake was discovered or you were found to be in violation of some technicality or other) then recent laws passed during the Bush Administration do say that the government can take money from other social programs (such as child support) in order to pay for it.  

[Agent Ginrei]

It just seems a bit wrong that they're more concerned with taking away the little you got than ensuring that your ex is keeping up on payments. =/  

[blubombay]

i thought that if you apply for government assitant that if you file for child support what ever you get the non custodial parent is suppose to pay for or thats what it is in florida  

[Lil-Jo]

When we lived in MN the system was that if you were on assistance they would take it all. If you were not currently on assistance they would take a percent of the CS and you would get the rest and that would continue until they were paid back what they were owed from having given you assistance.  

[Amarella Harte]

I don't believe men should have to pay child support legally. Morally yes, legally no.

The reason is the abortion laws.
1.A woman's body is entirely her own
2.The decision to carry/not carry the child to full term is entirely her own
3.Then the responsibility should be her own as well, it was her choice.

This includes men who divorce their wives after children are born because the decision was still legally the woman's choice.

I see the abortion/child support laws together, as a bunch of whiny women who don't want to be responsible for their own actions, but instead want everyone else to pay for their actions no matter which side of the fence they choose. They want their cake and they want to eat it to.

Fair to both men and women would be no abortion but child support or no child support but abortion.

As for taking it away. If you owe money it must be paid. Whether it comes from your check or theirs (It should all be going to the same places anyway). If you don't owe the money then that is a matter you'll just have to go through the headache of clearing up.  

[Wixandrettas]

It was a mandate passed by DHHS that when a Medicaid participant shows they qualified for TANF/FANF, that any child support collected by the Office of Child Support Enforcement would collect the money to reimburse for the state funds used to pay out on the TANF.

Child support is considered an alternative source of income and therefore granted under the Federal Laws/State Laws as a resource that will be used to pay back the state's TANF/FANF program.

I work in conjunction with DHHS through my job, and let me say this:

I completely agreethat if child support were being received and you are a TANF/FANF participant, I do believe they should be taking the child support to help pay back to the state, funds that were paid to you under TANF/FANF.

Now... you bring up a very arguable issue though... They, the government, are trying to recoup money that you qualified for 5 years ago.

I would STRONGLY advise you to talk with a Manager/Supervisor at your local Welfare District Office. Im not sure where you reside, but, they will definitely explain to you the who-what-where-when-why-how's. If they are retracting money, I would suggest requesting the State Article that gives them the authorization to withhold child support due to TANF eligibility 5 years previous. You have the right to request this.

Be VERY cordial when you inquire about this. You will get more results if you keep it civil.

I have a feeling you may not hear a positive result, so if in fact you do, please remember that the person who you will be corresponding with at the local District office is NOT the law-maker. It is not their actions that caused the law to be in place..... But I am sure they will be able to help get the information you need.  

[Kei Kat Jones]

Amarella Harte

I don't believe men should have to pay child support legally. Morally yes, legally no.

The reason is the abortion laws.
1.A woman's body is entirely her own
2.The decision to carry/not carry the child to full term is entirely her own
3.Then the responsibility should be her own as well, it was her choice.

This includes men who divorce their wives after children are born because the decision was still legally the woman's choice.

I see the abortion/child support laws together, as a bunch of whiny women who don't want to be responsible for their own actions, but instead want everyone else to pay for their actions no matter which side of the fence they choose. They want their cake and they want to eat it to.

Fair to both men and women would be no abortion but child support or no child support but abortion.

As for taking it away. If you owe money it must be paid. Whether it comes from your check or theirs (It should all be going to the same places anyway). If you don't owe the money then that is a matter you'll just have to go through the headache of clearing up.

I disagree with this statement mainly because this seems to based upon young kids. Both of them agreed to have kids during their marriage and just because one falls out of love with the other doesn't mean that the other party should not be responsible for the caring of their children.

Child support goes both ways for moms and dads. It is true that usually the mother will receive custody of the kids but the point is that with the separation the income is halved and caring for the child(ren) becomes a much heavier financial burden then it was with 2 incomes.

What are you saying that the other party should not sign the divorce papers? That just seems really selfish and immature trying to drag out a relationship that is over and done with. Both parties want to move on but the party responsible for the children cannot financially achieve that without help whether from the former spouse or from the government.

And a divorce isn't always because the kids were involved nor are the kids at 'fault'. The children should not be punished with death because of their parents separation.

But, getting back to the original issue it's not unheard of here in Ohio for the government to collect the money back that was owed. Certain governmental facilities, organizations and etc are struggling to keep their programs running and collecting the money that they 'loaned' out is what occurs.  

[Amarella Harte]

Kei Kat: Your missing the point. I said they shouldn't be legally responsible. They should be morally responsible.

The reason the law shouldn't make them legally responsible is because by law the woman does not have to get her husbands permission to have an abortion. i.e. she chooses to include him in the decision making process if she wants or not to include him, but in a court of law, the responsibility for the decision rests entirely on her shoulders. She cannot say he wanted the baby too – it’s her body not his. He cannot take her to court and insist that she carry the baby to term because he wants it.

In other words married or not, she can give him a baby that he does not want to be responsible for, and make him be responsible for it. He cannot make her have a baby she does not want to be responsible for much less make her be responsible for it. Until he has that right, the law should not force him to be responsible even if he should be.

(Which by the way, I DO believe he should be. Just not by law until they change the abortion laws.)  

[twotees]

The law should take care of him. Get in touch with your case worker about re-paying what was given to you in your time of need.

The USA has the highest percentage of poverty level per-capa in the wolrd we also have the highest percentage of the richest people per-capa in the world.
Thats not right. More children are dieing of starvation and are homeless than anyware else in the world. Yet we dont see any help the starving children comercials for the kidds liveing under the bridges of New York city.
Why is that???

Because the most rich people in the world live here so we are all concidered rich.
No one should b***h wine and comlaine about helping our people with anything that is needed.
Next year or after that you might be the person needing the help. Wouldnt it be a pisser if you were told no  

[angelplustwo]

Amarella Harte

I don't believe men should have to pay child support legally. Morally yes, legally no.

The reason is the abortion laws.
1.A woman's body is entirely her own
2.The decision to carry/not carry the child to full term is entirely her own
3.Then the responsibility should be her own as well, it was her choice.

This includes men who divorce their wives after children are born because the decision was still legally the woman's choice.

I see the abortion/child support laws together, as a bunch of whiny women who don't want to be responsible for their own actions, but instead want everyone else to pay for their actions no matter which side of the fence they choose. They want their cake and they want to eat it to.

Fair to both men and women would be no abortion but child support or no child support but abortion.

As for taking it away. If you owe money it must be paid. Whether it comes from your check or theirs (It should all be going to the same places anyway). If you don't owe the money then that is a matter you'll just have to go through the headache of clearing up.

i am sorry to say that i totally disagree with you. If a man fathers a child he is and should be legally and morally held to child support.if he creates a child he should be there to support that child with money, love, and support. IT IS NOT only the mothers responsibility. yes maybe she could have had an abortion but for alot of women that is NOT an option. Men need to face there responsibility if they don't want to be responsible for a child then they need to keep it in there pants. I feel very strongly on that subject for many reasons. I have a friend whos husband has 3 kids with her and 2 with 1 more on the way with a different women as wrong as i believe that is especially since my friend is still married to him and has been since highschool. He does take responsibility for all of his kids. my friend is such an amazing person that she even watches and loves his other children.  

[ThisEmptySoul]

I find it kind of interesting that the solution is often "if he doesn't like it, he should keep it in his pants" when it comes to children and child support. You realize it takes two to make a baby, right? On top of that, contrary to popular belief, sometimes men are pressured into sex because they don't know what else to do to make their woman happy.

For example, the relationship may have been going well for a while, but then suddenly... seemingly out of no where, the girlfriend starts becoming distant and accusing him of not loving her anymore. For the woman, there may be a list of reasons that have just built up over time that the man never noticed because she never said anything, but to the man it seems completely random {not that he was being "uncaring" or "insensitive"; men just aren't mind readers. If something is bothering you, we need to know.}

Not knowing where the problem is coming from nor how to fix it, intimacy seems like the best option because it doesn't require possibly getting into an argument to try and fix. Sometimes men really do have sex without wanting it because they think it will make their woman happy.

I don't like it when women blame the man for pregnancy... they both agree to have sex {of course, unless it was rape}, and thus the responsibility belongs to them both.

That being said, I agree with Amarella that -morally- a man should be responsible for his children, but -legally- he should not... especially with the abortion laws set the way they are {where a woman can terminate the child, even if the man wanted to take care of them. He has no say what happens to their child}.

These are personal matters that the government has no right to put their nose in.  

[angelplustwo]

ThisEmptySoul

I find it kind of interesting that the solution is often "if he doesn't like it, he should keep it in his pants" when it comes to children and child support. You realize it takes two to make a baby, right? On top of that, contrary to popular belief, sometimes men are pressured into sex because they don't know what else to do to make their woman happy.

For example, the relationship may have been going well for a while, but then suddenly... seemingly out of no where, the girlfriend starts becoming distant and accusing him of not loving her anymore. For the woman, there may be a list of reasons that have just built up over time that the man never noticed because she never said anything, but to the man it seems completely random {not that he was being "uncaring" or "insensitive"; men just aren't mind readers. If something is bothering you, we need to know.}

Not knowing where the problem is coming from nor how to fix it, intimacy seems like the best option because it doesn't require possibly getting into an argument to try and fix. Sometimes men really do have sex without wanting it because they think it will make their woman happy.

I don't like it when women blame the man for pregnancy... they both agree to have sex {of course, unless it was rape}, and thus the responsibility belongs to them both.

That being said, I agree with Amarella that -morally- a man should be responsible for his children, but -legally- he should not... especially with the abortion laws set the way they are {where a woman can terminate the child, even if the man wanted to take care of them. He has no say what happens to their child}.

These are personal matters that the government has no right to put their nose in.

your right it does take two, which was kind of my point. i have seen many many cases where the dad decides its all to much and bails leaving mom to raise the kids by themselfs right. now how is that fair to the kids?they feel abandoned and that dad doesn't care about them in alot of cases.
Don't get me wrong i have seen it go the other way and mom runs, i have another friend who has raised 3 boys only 1 of which was his actual son.Because there mom up and took off. he should have got child support to but he never did. all those boys are over 18 and doing well. i he has my full respect . darn i forgot my point! oh well i 'll come back when i remember it lol  

[Sweet_lil_tomboy]

My Goodness this is hot button issue. As a former payer of child support, I agree with the taking of child support for the compensation of welfare benefits. My ex was living in low income, subsidized housing, receiving foodstamps, cash money and medicaid all because he was too lazy to work and looked for excuses not to have to. I was going to school getting my degree, working full-time and paying my own way through shcool. I was ordered to pay $645 per month in child support for two children. The state took my child support to compensate the taxpayers for having to pay his way in this world. I think it is right for the states to do this. Why should I as a taxpayer and childsupport payer have to pay twice to support my children? As for the state taking it for something that happened 5 years ago and is not currently an issue, that is against the law and I would fight to get every penny back if I were you.
PS. I have my degree and my children and we are all doing quite well.