Child Support Agencies pocket it all. Kid's starve.

I haven't figured out if the entire subject of Child Support Agencies (CSA) should be described as the elephant in the room or the blackhole of the IRS. Anytime an audit is asked upon the a CSA, it is never complete. They never show any of the incomplete payments that father makes ever reaches the mother or kids. Mother's call that their kid's starve and the father's get punished.

There is a lot of personal experience of cases I know that I don't want to convey, so this thread asks you for for what your experience or knowledge is about CSAs and their ability to make complete double-entry audited reports of money going in and out of their system.

I remember when Al Gore sent me a letter that stated how much total child support money was owed. He addressed the amount skyrocketed every single year. He ended the letter with statements that said the total amount became the top priority within the Whitehouse and Congress. The amount seemed to value just how much deadbeats owe. (I was actually able to get the letter through when the Whitehouse went publicly Online, so my e-mail was luckily answered about the situation.)

The one thing that shocks me is that the courts never determine what deadbeats owe based on actual income. It's always plugged into some software (that has never been open-sourced) and out spits an amount the judge copies. Why would the CSAs report to the federal government a fictitious amount of money as owed?

Why do mother's complain they only get about like US$50 (if anything) from the CSAs each month when the father pays at least 1/4 of his salary up to all of it being completely garnished?

Where does all that other money go? Does the CSA pocket it as operational costs? If so, what is more important... those operational costs or food in our kids mouths?

[edit on 15-2-2010 by dzonatas]

Yup. Child support rarely benefits the child but the agency. They need to change the name from Child support to useless agency support.

reply to post by dzonatas


My daughter was born in 1975.I didn't get a child support check until
november of 2000.She was 25 and a mother herself.My ex was always
losing his tax checks to child support.I never saw a penny of that money.
How it was explained to me,when I complained.My ex had to pay the
state back for every penny it spent on me or my daughter.

reply to post by mamabeth


I don't know how you survived. I hope you had someone to help you.

The CSAs used to be apart of the District Attorney's office, so that is what the excuses were then of where the money went. Would that be attorney fees instead of really to the state?

Today, they'll even take the car away from the father. How is he suppose to get to work?

[edit on 15-2-2010 by dzonatas]

My ex paid his support, and I always received what I was owed.

I pay child support and my kid is not starving.

I do know that these agencies do not have the kids best interest at heart, and I suspect it is a scam.

reply to post by dzonatas


I had to work, 50 plus hours a week, to support myself and my daughter.
I would get a tax check every year and buy some extras.I went to a lot
of yard sales and thrift stores.I would put her school clothes in layaway.
I bought groceries at stores like Aldis.I also cooked meals and used
leftovers.

reply to post by hotbakedtater


So, maybe Kentucky has more honest CSAs than other states?

Or, did you ever see a complete audit of money paid? Like, did you ever match what he paid against what you received and was it exact same amount? I've seen reports like that and I've yet to find one that is complete.

[edit on 15-2-2010 by dzonatas]

reply to post by dzonatas


I got my print out monthly up at the court house. I called the 800 number every day (or at least weekly) to keep up with him and speak to an agent.

I am keeping vigilant track of what moneys I pay. I already wrote them a letter advising them as such.

reply to post by mamabeth


That's what I have heard more and more.

We understand there a differences in a couple that split them up, yet it doesn't make sense that the CSA would hang onto any extra money and force both parents away from their kids more and more -- to earn more money that never gets to the kids.

I heard of people work one job and all that money is garnished, then they have a secondary job, and that pays for health care, insurance, rent, school fees, babysitter fees, credit cards, and any debt acquired from the split up. 80 hours a week for a year is just insane an requirement and only to be able to take home about US$100 a month for food, and yet either one lucky enough to pay rent. This is a real case!

reply to post by hotbakedtater


On these reports, do you see like total money garnished, total money the CSA kept, and the total money they paid to you?

Or, do they just show you what the CSA paid you each month and you assume what the CSA was paid based on what the court order states?

When I was a child, my father had to pay child support through the Probate Court.
It all changed with the Clintons...they changed it so child support goes through DHHS.
If there is court ordered child support, it has to go through DHHS. I could tell you all sorts of horror stories about how that works. Needless to day, they never account for missing payments that were collected but not received, no one ever holds them accountable.
When Probate handled it, it all went where it was meant to.

Glad my parents didn't have to go through all this when they divorced. They split on fairly good terms ,well as good as you can I guess. My mother had custody of me for a little while and my father sent a check each month. No fighting, no mess and no dealing with the government for the checks. When I moved in with my father, same thing happened. I feel bad for anyone that has to deal with child support.

I do however feel much worse for the men involved. They are horribly taken advantage of in the process. Have known quite a few women who get hundreds of dollars a month in child support, yet do not work and live with men who they are not married to but take care of them. I think that any child support given should be of the appropriate amount and set in a fund only usable by for the interests of the child. At no point should the interests of the mother take precedence in this case.

The laws regarding child support are part of the main reason I refuse to have children. Luckily my wife is even more against children than I am.

I have been paying for 9 years and neither my ex nor I have ever had a problem. I use to pay at the local courthouse and the ex would have her check the next day. Then one day I walked in and they told me I had to start sending my payments to San Antonio.

Now the ex has to wait longer to get her check. I personally think the child support system is unfair to men, but that's a story for another day.

Originally posted by serendipitynow
Needless to day, they never account for missing payments that were collected but not received, no one ever holds them accountable. When Probate handled it, it all went where it was meant to.

Then it seems some handle it fully and some don't. I wonder if the federal government looks at each state individually, or does it only sample and audit a few states. You would think that would show up on the federal registers somehow, yet nobody question it.

[edit on 15-2-2010 by dzonatas]

Originally posted by Hypntick
Have known quite a few women who get hundreds of dollars a month in child support, yet do not work and live with men who they are not married to but take care of them. I think that any child support given should be of the appropriate amount and set in a fund only usable by for the interests of the child. At no point should the interests of the mother take precedence in this case.

Excellent point!

The case where the guy worked 2 jobs, 80 hours a week, while he only took home about US$100 a month, the reset of the money went to the ex who was already remarried twice. So the ex collected double child support money, all paid insurance, child sitters, schools funds, plus any extra went in her bank. Then being remarried the 3rd time, she collected everything her new hubby made. She would have easily took home more than a few thousand each month between child support and spousal support.

She complained she didn't get any.

The laws regarding child support are part of the main reason I refuse to have children. Luckily my wife is even more against children than I am.

Wow, I never considered it actually affected society that badly. I feel you on this one. Courts have already started to make it mandatory rather the split up couple want it or not.

Originally posted by jam321
Now the ex has to wait longer to get her check. I personally think the child support system is unfair to men, but that's a story for another day.

I always thought there should be like a credit card instead of checks. That way credit card gets used for exactly what the kids need. No more blank checks. The credit card companies could audit all payments to make sure they are being used for valid purchases that relate to the kids. That way, don't have to wait at all -- just use the card.

reply to post by dzonatas


Exactly. I always proposed this plan!!!

Courts give mom custody, so dad has to pay. ok no biggy.

Courts open a checking account with BOTH mom and dads name on it.

Mom (primary custody) is given a debit card that has access to the account 24/7/365.

Because of this ALL the money in there is accounted for because at the end of the month Mom, Dad, AND Case worker get a copy of the statement. Any BS charges (getting nails done, jewelry, or other crap) is now on the Mom to put back in the account by a certain date or SHE gets in trouble.

At the end of the agreement 9when kid turns 18, or whatever) that account is turned over to the child OR closed and the excess money is transfered into a college fund, trade school fund, or savings account.

I don't think you would have so many issues if BOTH parents were held accountable for the money being paid by one.

reply to post by rcwj1975
This is such a logical idea and totally supportable. Why wouldn't a system like this be implemented?

ETA: That's a general question... just musing out loud...








[edit on 15-2-2010 by LadySkadi]

reply to post by rcwj1975


If I could double-star your post, I would. That idea of the deal at 18 years of age is one major point!!! Everything that leads up to there is accountable.

It seems almost beneficial at that point to overpay on child support.

reply to post by dzonatas


Yes.

I am guessing, as much as my liked to complain about the pittance he was ordered to pay, if he was being garnished more than what was ordered he would have bitterly (is there any other kind) complained about it.

But I cannot say definitely.

I tell you what. I go back to work in March so I will try to remember and update you with what they take from my check.

I know they are taking it from my unemployment, and so far, what they took, lines up with whats ordered.

Now my friend griped and groaned when she finally started getting child support from one of the dad's, griped about a 25 dollar fee the Child Support agency took from the support, for some kind of set up account fee.

There are laws allowing how much they can take. It is imperative that if you are in the system and you are involved with CS to stay on top of the records.