Jump to content

Talk:Child support

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archived

[edit]

All Talk Page discussion through 10/25/07 10/28/07 11/27/2007 has been archived to the link to the right. No discussion threads or posts have been deleted, they have simply been moved, because at last check this page was 81kb long and becoming somewhat unwieldy. DanielEng 18:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, my law firm has begun legal forum website. With the intention of encouraging discussion related to family law issues such as child support. Please feel free to use the site to further discuss these issues. The main page to the website is [1] and the legal forum webpage is [2] --AttorneyChrisOakley (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I noticed your new section in the article. The information is good, but belongs in the separate article about Child Support in the United States, which is linked in the body of the article. US-specific information/sections doesn't have a place here because this article presents a global view of the issue. Thanks. DanielEng (talk) 07:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

non NPOV statement?

[edit]

This doesn't seem right in section 4.1 it says "The Collections Act, which basically gives the entire system an open door to commit fraud, and extort money from a large portion of the population while collecting interest in the process."

Is this vandalism? RichardFry (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Aspects of a broken system" section - possible NPOV

[edit]

There's good information in the section, but it reads as though the contributor is an opponent of child support as it stands. I've flagged the section for WP:NPOV. --Alan (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made an attempt to push the article in question "Aspects of a broken system", more into neutrality. Would like to modify it more without losing the important information to the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadapathy (talk • contribs) 20:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gender Bias

[edit]

This article seems to imply bias when saying that the father typically loses in court, but it doesn't elaborate. "and finally to the parent who loses in court (typically the father)" I've spoken with someone that works in the industry, and he told me a similar account of this bias. In his department, none of the females ordered to pay child support ever payed up, because it wasn't enforced or processed by his female supervisors. The term "Dead Beat Dad" also suggests that the industry is slanted. Nearly every person I know that pays child support has similar concerns about gender bias against the father in Child Custody and Support. I think a section touching on these issues would be a useful addition to this article, perhaps in a better organized "Criticism" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.194.233 (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes i agree — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.28.114 (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.89.197.167 (talk) 03:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unpaid Child Support/Contempt Court/incarceration

[edit]

In United State, the parent may be incarcerated for unpaid child support and alternative death penalty for cancer patient may be processed in order to get money from non custodial parent.

The question is why the custodial parent should have sole custody if he/she has no financial ability to take care of the child? How can non custodial parent makes money to pay child support when he/she is incarcerated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawlessfactless (talk • contribs) 10:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

500 billion number

[edit]

The $500 billion number sounds absurd, and probably is. The source (79) looks terrible, and the number doesn't appear anywhere on there anyway! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.202.209 (talk) 05:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Dead-beat" term

[edit]

Under "Compliance and enforcement issues" the first paragraph states that "While "dead-beat" is a pejorative used by some in the media and some child support advocacy groups, it is not the legal term used to describe such parents." In the very next paragraph it refers to the "Federal Deadbeat Punishment Act". This seems to be directly contradictory. 206.248.156.92 (talk) 10:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Slavery" as a related article

[edit]

Under "See also", Slavery is listed. It is not even tangentially referenced in the article however, and including Slavery under "See also" seems to editorialize the article a bit, appealing to the common rhetoric that child support "enslaves" men.

50.121.122.90 (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't belong. I have removed it. Deli nk (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Child support. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Child support. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Child support. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

for whose benefit?

[edit]

I think the opening sentence is misleading where it says "for the financial benefit of a child". Later on, the article does explain "courts have vehemently opposed any attempt by "Non Custodial" parents to ensure "Child Support" is actually used for the child." The fact is that the law does not require the money to be spent for the financial benefit of a child, in the USA. I don't know about other countries. This point should be in the opening paragraph somewhere, and explained better later also. Roger (talk) 20:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it should not. The fact that a parent does not have to account for child support does not mean that the custodial parent is not expending resources on behalf of the child. It simply means that they cannot be compelled to provide an accounting. Very obviously, and by definition, a custodial parent expends money to support a child.Arllaw (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not just that the custodial parent does not have to provide an accounting. The custodial parent has to support the child, but does not have to spend any child support money on the child. If you doubt this, I will look for a citation. Roger (talk) 22:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are making a political argument, and for that matter a semantic argument as opposed to a substantive one. Money is fungible, so it doesn't make a lick of difference whether the child support payment is said to be used for the support of the child, or as reimbursement for the payor's share of expenditures that the custodial parent has already incurred.Arllaw (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not expressing any political opinion at all. I am just describing how the system works. The money does not have to be either used for support of the child or for reimbursement. You occasionally hear of a movie star paying $20k per month in child support, even tho much less gets spent on the child. There are arguments both for and against doing it that way, but I have not mentioned them. Roger (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If that were the case, you would be content with the explanation already in the article rather than trying to politicize the article by pushing a highly misleading argument made by child support opponents into the opening paragraph. If something theoretically could happen in one case in a million, it does not belong in the introductory paragraph as if its' the norm. If you want to make that sort of argument, go to the "criticism" subsection and support it with proper references.Arllaw (talk) 12:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not criticism. It is how it works. Some people like it that way, and some people don't. I was not proposing to include any of those arguments. The opening paragraph does mention some odd possibilities, such as paying a non-parent guardian. It is just wrong to say that the money is for the child when there is no such requirement. And yes, it is the norm that the money is not required to be spent on the child. Only in exceptional cases, in the USA, is there a requirement to spend the money on the child. I am not content with the explanation in the article because the opening paragraph is misleading. Roger (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You need to refrain from politicizing this article, you need to properly support your claims, and you should refrain from putting false statements in the notes from your edits. Arllaw (talk) 13:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What is political? I have not put any political opinions in the article. Perhaps some political arguments for the system would help, but I did not insert them. Are you disputing the correctness of my edits? Do you have a political objection, or a factual objection? Roger (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Besides correcting some wrong text in the article, I am trying to address a common question people have about child support. Those who pay often want to know where the money goes. Those who receive it often wonder if there are legal restrictions on how they spend the money. They might come to this article looking for an answer. The article should have some explanation that is not misleading. Roger (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by Arllaw make several unsupported claims. The source does not say anything about unusual circumstances, or "no need to require accountings", or whether child support payments are sufficient to cover the costs. It makes comparisons to what parents spend, in some scenarios, but that's about all. Roger (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accountings are your issue, not mine. If you believe that the sources are inadequate, I'm sure you know how to search for additional sources and add them.Arllaw (talk) 02:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to state the simple fact that accountings are not required, and neither is spending money on the child. You say "most jurisdictions find no basis to require accountings", but I don't think that is right. They don't require accountings, but you are trying to make a stronger statement, as if to imply that there is no reason for accountings. There are arguments for and against accountings. You also say "child support payments are almost never sufficient to cover that full cost". Again, this is false, and not supported by your sources. I see you added a 1983 women's law advocacy article, but it talks mostly about child support systems that no longer exist. And no, I cannot find additional sources for your false statements. Roger (talk) 05:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You keep making this more and more personal, which is not necessary. The statement you misrepresent in your missive is "Barring unusual circumstances, most jurisdictions find no basis to require accountings on the request of a child support payor". That is true, despite decades of lobbying by anti-child support groups to convince courts and legislatures of the opposite. As you know, only ten U.S. jurisdictions allow for accountings under any circumstances. Whatever your sympathies for the arguments of those anti-child support factions, the facts are what they are. Arguments rejected decades ago remain rejected.Arllaw (talk) 12:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the one making this personal. I have not expressed any opinion on whether there should be accountings or the positions of anti-child support factions. As I say, there are arguments for both sides. Please don't say that critics have no basis unless you are going to name those critics and demonstrate that they have no basis. Also you say "almost never sufficient", but that is not true and you have no source for that. Roger (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is this your M.O.? Insult, make false statements in editor comments, browbeat and complain until others just give up? You obviously don't think that there are arguments on both sides, as you keep trying to delete the facts that run counter to your opinions.Arllaw (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article was a mess not long ago. To me, the editorial bias pushed by Schalfly and his comments and conduct here come across as an effort to push the soft of anti-child support bias back into the article that was so recently cleaned out.207.229.135.146 (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(ignoring ad hominem attacks) If I have said anything false, please explain the error, with sources. Roger (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Child support. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 30 external links on Child support. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Child support. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Child support. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

US States Profiting from Social Security Title IV Child Support Collections

[edit]

[3]https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/child-support/who-we-are/title-iv-d-and-child-support-texas

Has this statement that the state has a monetary benefit, from federal government payments to the state, from collecting child support money.

"The Social Security Act of 1975 contains Title IV-D—a federal law that, in part, requires every state to manage a child support enforcement program. To help fund these programs, the federal government provides money to each state. These funds help cover the operational costs involved in child support enforcement—including establishing orders, enforcement efforts and tracking and reporting."

This page needs additional RS about how this incentivizes the state government to award the maximum amount of child support as well as collect the most child support it can. Also, how this maximizing the amount of awarded child support can lower the percentage of time the higher earning parent has custody of the child. 2600:1700:D591:5F10:5D68:32BA:2E:C815 (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Social Security Act of 1975 was signed into law by President Gerald Ford. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:5D68:32BA:2E:C815 (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Child_support&oldid=1286916754"