Full Version: Man pays child support for daughter dead 11 years...
"Nobody should have to go through this, to send payments every week on current child support only to find out their daughter died all these years ago," Davenport said. "I don't know how to even express how I feel about this."
Please read the entire article before answering the questions:
Questions for debate
1) What should be done to prevent fiascos like this from happening?
2) Given the number of children who have no contact with the non-custodial parent while residing in different states, how common do you think this sort of situation may be?
3) Would you chalk this up to simple bureaucratic bungling, a natural and inexorable outcome of a corrupt system, or somewhere in between?
4) What should be done to the mother?
Please read the entire article before answering the questions:
Questions for debate
1) What should be done to prevent fiascos like this from happening?
2) Given the number of children who have no contact with the non-custodial parent while residing in different states, how common do you think this sort of situation may be?
3) Would you chalk this up to simple bureaucratic bungling, a natural and inexorable outcome of a corrupt system, or somewhere in between?
4) What should be done to the mother?
1) What should be done to prevent fiascos like this from happening?
The Court Judges involved should be removed from their positions. I assume that with Child Custody cases,
Court systems would have social workers check up on the children periodically or have some visitation system where the other parent gets to visit the child. Since the Court system didn't do either option, the judges were clearly neglecting their jobs. The fact that the man was prevented from having any contact with the mother or child seems pretty outrageous.
Since the scandal involved judges from multiple states, it's likely that the Federal Government may have to do an investigation to find out who is exactly responsible for what. The Child Support system in America needs clear reform without question.
4) What should be done to the mother?
She should be required to pay restitution to the father for using the court system to extort money. The man should get a lawyer and sue the state of California and Texas for their role in the scandal. I hope the ACLU or another organization comes in and helps the man with legal assistance. It's outrageous that anyone can pay child support only to find out 11 years later that the child died a long time ago.
The Court Judges involved should be removed from their positions. I assume that with Child Custody cases,
Court systems would have social workers check up on the children periodically or have some visitation system where the other parent gets to visit the child. Since the Court system didn't do either option, the judges were clearly neglecting their jobs. The fact that the man was prevented from having any contact with the mother or child seems pretty outrageous.
Since the scandal involved judges from multiple states, it's likely that the Federal Government may have to do an investigation to find out who is exactly responsible for what. The Child Support system in America needs clear reform without question.
4) What should be done to the mother?
She should be required to pay restitution to the father for using the court system to extort money. The man should get a lawyer and sue the state of California and Texas for their role in the scandal. I hope the ACLU or another organization comes in and helps the man with legal assistance. It's outrageous that anyone can pay child support only to find out 11 years later that the child died a long time ago.
QUOTE
He said he had been called to court numerous times, after 1995, and his bank account was even frozen in 2004 by the Texas Attorney General's office to pay arrears - nine years after Ashley's death.
They took him to court and froze his assets for failure to pay support 9 years after the child's death. This indicates that nowhere in the process did anyone even think about checking on the child's well being. So much for any pretense of the system looking out for the child.
QUOTE
He said he spoke with the Stanislaus office Tuesday, and they offered to send him a check for $2,000. But Davenport said he will not accept the money until they answer his questions, namely, how could both Texas and California lose a child for 11 years.
$2,000 ????? They collected child support wrongly for 11 years, and took him to court needlessly and froze his assets, and they're offerring $2,000???
As for who to blame, it's not the judges. Nothing in here indicates an incorrect judgement was made, at least not in the initial court order stipulating payment. Judges can't possibly be held accountable for keeping track of all the people in the system.
As for his stance of demanding some accountability.....good for him! The child support system is indeed messed up....maybe this will provide some impetus for cleaning it up. This should give some insight into how little the system really cares about what goes on in child support matters.
The only thing that angered me about that article was the fact that this man is trying to make out like he was suffering some kind of emotional loss and that the journalist went along with this charade.
He had a daughter in which he was reminded of, according to the article, weekly of her existence for 11 yrs. Yet he never participated enough in her life to even know if she was alive or dead. And he wants our sympathy? How did they lose his child he wants to know, how could the state not know of her death? Yet I am left wondering how he lost her, she was his to begin with, not the state's, and why did her own father not know she was dead?
Good I am glad he overpaid child support, hardly punishment enough for having so little concern for his own child that he didn't even know if she was alive or dead and fully depended upon the state to inform him of this and now to take responsibility for his failures. What a loser.
He had a daughter in which he was reminded of, according to the article, weekly of her existence for 11 yrs. Yet he never participated enough in her life to even know if she was alive or dead. And he wants our sympathy? How did they lose his child he wants to know, how could the state not know of her death? Yet I am left wondering how he lost her, she was his to begin with, not the state's, and why did her own father not know she was dead?
Good I am glad he overpaid child support, hardly punishment enough for having so little concern for his own child that he didn't even know if she was alive or dead and fully depended upon the state to inform him of this and now to take responsibility for his failures. What a loser.
QUOTE(bucket @ Jul 10 2006, 02:53 PM) 
The only thing that angered me about that article was the fact that this man is trying to make out like he was suffering some kind of emotional loss and that the journalist went along with this charade.
He had a daughter in which he was reminded of, according to the article, weekly of her existence for 11 yrs. Yet he never participated enough in her life to even know if she was alive or dead. And he wants our sympathy? How did they lose his child he wants to know, how could the state not know of her death? Yet I am left wondering how he lost her, she was his to begin with, not the state's, and why did her own father not know she was dead?
Good I am glad he overpaid child support, hardly punishment enough for having so little concern for his own child that he didn't even know if she was alive or dead and fully depended upon the state to inform him of this and now to take responsibility for his failures. What a loser.
Well... umm.... I dunno about this.
If I understand this correctly, this woman was probably receiving reimbursement for the duration. Where else did the money go? Furthermore, the article doesn't really even show that the mother told the state that the child was dead. It's not the man's legal obligation to give her love and support, even as horrible as that is to say. It is the legal obligation of the father to pay. The issue is that we don't really know when the state was notified or where that funding actually went. What would've happened had she turned the daughter over for adoption?
I believe that it enumerates the flawed and disparate treatment of fathers in general when in reference to custody law, etc. So he was a crappy dad... does that make the system's mistake any better??
The law was obviously right on top of freezin' his assets... I can't wait to see how this turns out. I hope he gets a monster settlement! It's my experience that fathers typically get the shaft, and regardless of this gentleman's merit as a person, I can't wait for this one to get mainstream media attention... hahahaha... like that will happen!
4) What should be done to the mother?
I'll start with this one, as I see it as the most important.
According to the article, this "woman" was complicity in her daughter's death. She allowed her child to ride in the front seat on the lap of another passenger--at age 6. She could not have been wearing a seat belt (having been ejected from the car and all...).
After that, this woman continued to receive weekly or monthly checks from the father. She never reported, either to the father or to state officials, that the child was dead.
In my opinion, this woman, not the system, is entirely to blame. She should be jailed for fraud.
3) Would you chalk this up to simple bureaucratic bungling, a natural and inexorable outcome of a corrupt system, or somewhere in between?
I don't see how the system could prevent such a willful cover-up. Child support payments are not the same as supervised custody or anything like that. The state is simply a conduit to ensure that payments are made. There is no implication that the state will ensure the child's welfare or how the money is spent.
2) Given the number of children who have no contact with the non-custodial parent while residing in different states, how common do you think this sort of situation may be?
I'd like to think that children don't die that often. Of course, it wouldn't surprise me that if they did die, the custodial parent might "forget" to report it. As in this case, however, eventually they would be caught (and make the newspaper). I haven't seen any stories like this, so I doubt it happens much.
1) What should be done to prevent fiascos like this from happening?
First off, I'm with bucket. If my kids move to another state, you'd better believe I'll keep in touch. This child never knew her father, apparently. He obviously had problems (prison and such...). Maybe it was better he never knew her, I can't make that judgement. However, had he made the effort to establish contact, this would not have happened. I have no sympathy for this clod.
The other way to prevent this is to prosecute the mother. She is guilty of fraud and should be made an example of to discourage similar behavior.
I'll start with this one, as I see it as the most important.
According to the article, this "woman" was complicity in her daughter's death. She allowed her child to ride in the front seat on the lap of another passenger--at age 6. She could not have been wearing a seat belt (having been ejected from the car and all...).
After that, this woman continued to receive weekly or monthly checks from the father. She never reported, either to the father or to state officials, that the child was dead.
In my opinion, this woman, not the system, is entirely to blame. She should be jailed for fraud.
3) Would you chalk this up to simple bureaucratic bungling, a natural and inexorable outcome of a corrupt system, or somewhere in between?
I don't see how the system could prevent such a willful cover-up. Child support payments are not the same as supervised custody or anything like that. The state is simply a conduit to ensure that payments are made. There is no implication that the state will ensure the child's welfare or how the money is spent.
2) Given the number of children who have no contact with the non-custodial parent while residing in different states, how common do you think this sort of situation may be?
I'd like to think that children don't die that often. Of course, it wouldn't surprise me that if they did die, the custodial parent might "forget" to report it. As in this case, however, eventually they would be caught (and make the newspaper). I haven't seen any stories like this, so I doubt it happens much.
1) What should be done to prevent fiascos like this from happening?
First off, I'm with bucket. If my kids move to another state, you'd better believe I'll keep in touch. This child never knew her father, apparently. He obviously had problems (prison and such...). Maybe it was better he never knew her, I can't make that judgement. However, had he made the effort to establish contact, this would not have happened. I have no sympathy for this clod.
The other way to prevent this is to prosecute the mother. She is guilty of fraud and should be made an example of to discourage similar behavior.
1) What should be done to prevent fiascos like this from happening?
California needs to develop a more efficient system for auditing their files. I don't imagine that there are many situations like this one, but if they can make an error of this scale, then there are probably many other errors within their system.
Additionally, I have to question a system that continually collects child support without re-evaluating the financial situation of both the mother and the father. It seems like it would be a good policy to reassess every couple of years in case either side's situation has changed significantly. This would also be a good time to update the files and ensure that all data is correct, thus avoiding situations like this one.
2) Given the number of children who have no contact with the non-custodial parent while residing in different states, how common do you think this sort of situation may be?
I don't imagine that this particular situation is common. I'd like to think that most people would have the decency to inform the system and/or the child's absentee parent in the event of the child's death.
3) Would you chalk this up to simple bureaucratic bungling, a natural and inexorable outcome of a corrupt system, or somewhere in between?
I would say that California's portion of the error was bureacracy and poor auditing techniques.
4) What should be done to the mother?
I agree with Amlord that the mother should be charged with fraud.
As far as the father goes, he should receive compensation from the mother, but I can't find much sympathy for this man in regards to the death of his child. Had he really wanted contact with his daughter, there are resources that he could have tapped into, but he apparently chose not to.
California needs to develop a more efficient system for auditing their files. I don't imagine that there are many situations like this one, but if they can make an error of this scale, then there are probably many other errors within their system.
Additionally, I have to question a system that continually collects child support without re-evaluating the financial situation of both the mother and the father. It seems like it would be a good policy to reassess every couple of years in case either side's situation has changed significantly. This would also be a good time to update the files and ensure that all data is correct, thus avoiding situations like this one.
2) Given the number of children who have no contact with the non-custodial parent while residing in different states, how common do you think this sort of situation may be?
I don't imagine that this particular situation is common. I'd like to think that most people would have the decency to inform the system and/or the child's absentee parent in the event of the child's death.
3) Would you chalk this up to simple bureaucratic bungling, a natural and inexorable outcome of a corrupt system, or somewhere in between?
I would say that California's portion of the error was bureacracy and poor auditing techniques.
4) What should be done to the mother?
I agree with Amlord that the mother should be charged with fraud.
As far as the father goes, he should receive compensation from the mother, but I can't find much sympathy for this man in regards to the death of his child. Had he really wanted contact with his daughter, there are resources that he could have tapped into, but he apparently chose not to.
I think the father here is being unduly criticized for losing track of his daughter.
There isn't any evidence in the article this isn't the case, and the story he tells does lead to a situation where this could easily happen.
Further,
Again, there isn't any evidence in the article to contradict this either. I'm not trying to put him up for Father of the Year, but I think we might hold off on the tarring and feathering for a bit.
I do agree that this isn't necessarily about the states, either...although how they could go to court, and freeze assets without even attempting to ascertain the status seems like a serious flaw to me. You'd think they would at least have informed the mother of the status of the court proceedings, making her even more complicit if she failed to inform them of the death of the daughter.
QUOTE
"I've tried to contact her all these years, and I haven't been able to find them," Davenport said.
There isn't any evidence in the article this isn't the case, and the story he tells does lead to a situation where this could easily happen.
Further,
QUOTE
He said he was looking forward to this fall, when Ashley would have turned 18, so that he might be able to establish a relationship with her.
Again, there isn't any evidence in the article to contradict this either. I'm not trying to put him up for Father of the Year, but I think we might hold off on the tarring and feathering for a bit.
I do agree that this isn't necessarily about the states, either...although how they could go to court, and freeze assets without even attempting to ascertain the status seems like a serious flaw to me. You'd think they would at least have informed the mother of the status of the court proceedings, making her even more complicit if she failed to inform them of the death of the daughter.
1) What should be done to prevent fiascos like this from happening?
Make the custodial parent execute a document under penalty of perjury attesting to the fact that the child[ren] is or are alive [as the circumstance may be]. It could be part of a yearly send-out and return submission wherein child suppport collected and transmitted is reported and the parent asked to verify the same. There is no incentive for any state do so, however, since lucky for us, the states receive something akin to matching funds for every dollar in child support they collect [so not only did mom profit following her daughter's demise, so did the great State of California, and maybe that explains the "no comment" from our California child support spokesperson]. And by the way, for a freebie, the matching funds scenario explains why, if you are the custodial parent requesting an increase in child support, you can have a hearing tomorrow, but if you are are the noncustodial parent who wants to reduce your child support obligation, well, hell might freeze over before you get a hearing/review.
2) Given the number of children who have no contact with the non-custodial parent while residing in different states, how common do you think this sort of situation may be?
Probably not that common, i.e, we could probably count such instances on one hand. Certainly far more common is the circumstance wherein the custodial parent is her/him-self no longer caring for the child but someone else [some other relative], and then one's client learns that the child support still goes to the other parent who is not even having the doubtful grace to transmit the funds to the person[s] actually caring for the child.
3) Would you chalk this up to simple bureaucratic bungling, a natural and inexorable outcome of a corrupt system, or somewhere in between?
See my response to no. 1 above, at least insofar as concerns the state. As to mom, well, that's a whole other matter.
4) What should be done to the mother?
She should be made to wear one of those bright orange jumpsuits, with a sign on placards, front and back, tied around the neck, saying "I'm a thief", while she collects rubbish on the side of the road. We'll credit her for minimum wage for every hour spent doing so and when she's "earned" enough, she can go her own merry way.
Make the custodial parent execute a document under penalty of perjury attesting to the fact that the child[ren] is or are alive [as the circumstance may be]. It could be part of a yearly send-out and return submission wherein child suppport collected and transmitted is reported and the parent asked to verify the same. There is no incentive for any state do so, however, since lucky for us, the states receive something akin to matching funds for every dollar in child support they collect [so not only did mom profit following her daughter's demise, so did the great State of California, and maybe that explains the "no comment" from our California child support spokesperson]. And by the way, for a freebie, the matching funds scenario explains why, if you are the custodial parent requesting an increase in child support, you can have a hearing tomorrow, but if you are are the noncustodial parent who wants to reduce your child support obligation, well, hell might freeze over before you get a hearing/review.
2) Given the number of children who have no contact with the non-custodial parent while residing in different states, how common do you think this sort of situation may be?
Probably not that common, i.e, we could probably count such instances on one hand. Certainly far more common is the circumstance wherein the custodial parent is her/him-self no longer caring for the child but someone else [some other relative], and then one's client learns that the child support still goes to the other parent who is not even having the doubtful grace to transmit the funds to the person[s] actually caring for the child.
3) Would you chalk this up to simple bureaucratic bungling, a natural and inexorable outcome of a corrupt system, or somewhere in between?
See my response to no. 1 above, at least insofar as concerns the state. As to mom, well, that's a whole other matter.
4) What should be done to the mother?
She should be made to wear one of those bright orange jumpsuits, with a sign on placards, front and back, tied around the neck, saying "I'm a thief", while she collects rubbish on the side of the road. We'll credit her for minimum wage for every hour spent doing so and when she's "earned" enough, she can go her own merry way.
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Jul 10 2006, 03:58 PM)
I think the father here is being unduly criticized for losing track of his daughter.
QUOTE
"I've tried to contact her all these years, and I haven't been able to find them," Davenport said.
There isn't any evidence in the article this isn't the case, and the story he tells does lead to a situation where this could easily happen.
The article indicates that he tried to find the mother, but it doesn't indicate whether or not he used the established legal avenues to maintain contact with his child. California has a system in place to request many different types of joint custody and visitation rights, and the only thing that would bar him from attempting them is domestic violence charges. There's not enough information in the article to confirm what his attempts included, but it seems that if there were no domestic violence charges (which we don't know), and he really desired contact with his child, there was a way for him to obtain that.
For those who are giving California a pass on this because they "weren't informed of the child's death", I must remind you that the mother did time in jail, and 3 years of probation as a result of the death. The State of California knew, although its quite possible that one hand didna know squat about what was going on in the other hand...
Furthermore, the State of California Office of Vital Records undoubtedly had a record of the death....
Furthermore, the State of California Office of Vital Records undoubtedly had a record of the death....
QUOTE
It seems like it would be a good policy to reassess every couple of years in case either side's situation has changed significantly
Child support is only "reassessed" at the request of either the custodial or non-custodial parent, and there is a limit on how frequently in can be revisited. Its likely that the CS enforcers in California are kind enough to remind the custodial parent of when they can ask for more, but the CS enforcers can't do more than that.
In my opinion the blame for this falls squarely on first, the mother and second, the State of California. The State can't claim they didn't know the child was dead. As was stated previously, the State put the woman in jail for the death.
The mother obviously continued to take the checks. The mother and the State are responsible for getting this man's money back... every cent he spent on child support since his daughter's death plus interest. How good a father he was, or whether or not he did all he could to see his daughter is, ultimately, irrelevant. Legally, this is fraud on the part of both the mother and the State - which, through its incompetence, went out of its way to see that this woman got this money that she shouldn't have been getting. The State is complicit in the crime.
The mother obviously continued to take the checks. The mother and the State are responsible for getting this man's money back... every cent he spent on child support since his daughter's death plus interest. How good a father he was, or whether or not he did all he could to see his daughter is, ultimately, irrelevant. Legally, this is fraud on the part of both the mother and the State - which, through its incompetence, went out of its way to see that this woman got this money that she shouldn't have been getting. The State is complicit in the crime.
2) Given the number of children who have no contact with the non-custodial parent while residing in different states, how common do you think this sort of situation may be?
If you're talking about child support fraud, I’m sure it’s more common than anyone realizes. This case, in which a child died and the mother kept collecting support, I doubt that is very common.
But, just to mention something that sticks out of this story like a sore thumb, it is up to the non-custodial parent to make sure he gets the opportunity to see his child. You’d think that once or twice in 11 years, he could have found the gumption to look for his kid.
1) What should be done to prevent fiascos like this from happening?
3) Would you chalk this up to simple bureaucratic bungling, a natural and inexorable outcome of a corrupt system, or somewhere in between?
These two questions are 2 sides of the same coin. Bureaucratic bungling is the name of the game when you have governmental bodies involved. Just to mention one glaringly bad example, Florida is plagued with children in their foster system who seem to simply “disappear”. If the state can’t even keep track of kids entrusted to its own care, how do you expect them to keep track of a slew of divorced parents’ kids??
And we all know how well trying to fix bureaucratic inefficiencies works!
4) What should be done to the mother?
She should be tried for fraud, of course.
If you're talking about child support fraud, I’m sure it’s more common than anyone realizes. This case, in which a child died and the mother kept collecting support, I doubt that is very common.
But, just to mention something that sticks out of this story like a sore thumb, it is up to the non-custodial parent to make sure he gets the opportunity to see his child. You’d think that once or twice in 11 years, he could have found the gumption to look for his kid.
1) What should be done to prevent fiascos like this from happening?
3) Would you chalk this up to simple bureaucratic bungling, a natural and inexorable outcome of a corrupt system, or somewhere in between?
These two questions are 2 sides of the same coin. Bureaucratic bungling is the name of the game when you have governmental bodies involved. Just to mention one glaringly bad example, Florida is plagued with children in their foster system who seem to simply “disappear”. If the state can’t even keep track of kids entrusted to its own care, how do you expect them to keep track of a slew of divorced parents’ kids??
QUOTE
When the disappearance of a 5-year-old girl from her Miami foster home four years ago went unnoticed for months, the ensuing scandal that engulfed Florida's child-welfare agency led to recriminations and promises of beefed-up efforts to track down children who went missing from state care.
<snip>
Yet as of Monday, the number of kids missing from the state's troubled child-welfare system has skyrocketed to 652, most of them runaway teens and youngsters snatched from foster care by their biological parents. The number of missing kids has risen even as the number of kids in state care has declined. Bradenton
<snip>
Yet as of Monday, the number of kids missing from the state's troubled child-welfare system has skyrocketed to 652, most of them runaway teens and youngsters snatched from foster care by their biological parents. The number of missing kids has risen even as the number of kids in state care has declined. Bradenton
And we all know how well trying to fix bureaucratic inefficiencies works!
4) What should be done to the mother?
She should be tried for fraud, of course.
First off, the entire CS system is INCREDIBLY anti-father biased, as is the whole legal system, I know this from personal experiance as a child and as a father.
It is incredibly hard for a man to keep track of his kids, or get any information whatsoever, if he is non-custodial- they basically treat you like human garbage, the system only thinks of you as a walking wallet and sperm donor, and you can hear the contempt they have for you in the first couple sentences.
My mother moved 20 times in 2 years, never told my dad our address or anything- he was not abusive, he was not a bad father, he was not a bad person in any way- but my mom wanted to punish him, because, back then, you had to have a reason for divorce. So she made up some reasons. And moved and moved. Child support was really on top of taking his money- but would not divulge any information as to where those checks were going!
After about 5 years and bankruptcy- he no longer had the funds to search for us, to travel halfway across the country for "visitation" for my mom to play games with his times- one time he flew all the way from Texas to WA state, and my mom decided to "take us camping" on that weekend. I had to wait until I was 17 to rebond with that man.
I am not angry at my Mom, she eventually saw the error of her ways and we put all that behind us- but I am very angry at a system that is totally biased against men in every way.
There is absolutely no accountability for Child support- and I think it should be done away with entirely unless there is PROVEN abuse of the child. Mom is poor? To darn bad, let the father be the custodial parent then.
This is just another "business as usual" type thing from my perspective, betchya it happens every day.
I am now the custodial parent of my children, but of course, I had to fight for them, and the mother had to NOT fight for them- had she fought, I am sure I would have not won- the court judge treated me like I was a leper wanting to raise HIS kids. That is even with the mother sitting there saying what a great father I was.
I am very hateful and angry to this system, and this kind of stuff makes my blood boil. I wish there was capital punishment for everyone involved personally- but what we really need to kill is the entire Child support system. Money should no longer be even a part of the equation after divorce- you want the children, YOU support them- period. Only exception is to PROVEN child abuse.
If I could be king for a day that would be my first act- to completely abolish all child support- and make the recievers pay it back at the same rate they recieved it, and in the same manner.
It is incredibly hard for a man to keep track of his kids, or get any information whatsoever, if he is non-custodial- they basically treat you like human garbage, the system only thinks of you as a walking wallet and sperm donor, and you can hear the contempt they have for you in the first couple sentences.
My mother moved 20 times in 2 years, never told my dad our address or anything- he was not abusive, he was not a bad father, he was not a bad person in any way- but my mom wanted to punish him, because, back then, you had to have a reason for divorce. So she made up some reasons. And moved and moved. Child support was really on top of taking his money- but would not divulge any information as to where those checks were going!
After about 5 years and bankruptcy- he no longer had the funds to search for us, to travel halfway across the country for "visitation" for my mom to play games with his times- one time he flew all the way from Texas to WA state, and my mom decided to "take us camping" on that weekend. I had to wait until I was 17 to rebond with that man.
I am not angry at my Mom, she eventually saw the error of her ways and we put all that behind us- but I am very angry at a system that is totally biased against men in every way.
There is absolutely no accountability for Child support- and I think it should be done away with entirely unless there is PROVEN abuse of the child. Mom is poor? To darn bad, let the father be the custodial parent then.
This is just another "business as usual" type thing from my perspective, betchya it happens every day.
I am now the custodial parent of my children, but of course, I had to fight for them, and the mother had to NOT fight for them- had she fought, I am sure I would have not won- the court judge treated me like I was a leper wanting to raise HIS kids. That is even with the mother sitting there saying what a great father I was.
I am very hateful and angry to this system, and this kind of stuff makes my blood boil. I wish there was capital punishment for everyone involved personally- but what we really need to kill is the entire Child support system. Money should no longer be even a part of the equation after divorce- you want the children, YOU support them- period. Only exception is to PROVEN child abuse.
If I could be king for a day that would be my first act- to completely abolish all child support- and make the recievers pay it back at the same rate they recieved it, and in the same manner.
And the beat goes on...
CR, make sure you're nice and relaxed before reading this, don't want you popping blood vessel
More gross incompetence in California, only this time it looks like the government may finally have to pay for their stupidity, unless of course they fall back on the "king can do no wrong" shield.
Teenage Girl Reunited With Her Long-Lost Father After Decade in Foster Care Sues L.A. County
A teenage girl reunited with her father last year after a decade in foster care is suing Los Angeles County for taking so long to bring them together.
County supervisors had said in September that the reunion of Melinda Smith, now 17, and father Thomas Marion Smith was the result of a "groundbreaking effort," and congratulated county agencies for locating the father.
But the lawsuit alleges that the Department of Children and Family Services failed to use "due diligence" to locate Thomas Smith. It claims the agency never notified Smith, who had continued making child support payments, that his daughter was in foster care and never gave him a chance to claim her.
...
CR, make sure you're nice and relaxed before reading this, don't want you popping blood vessel
More gross incompetence in California, only this time it looks like the government may finally have to pay for their stupidity, unless of course they fall back on the "king can do no wrong" shield.
Teenage Girl Reunited With Her Long-Lost Father After Decade in Foster Care Sues L.A. County
A teenage girl reunited with her father last year after a decade in foster care is suing Los Angeles County for taking so long to bring them together.
County supervisors had said in September that the reunion of Melinda Smith, now 17, and father Thomas Marion Smith was the result of a "groundbreaking effort," and congratulated county agencies for locating the father.
But the lawsuit alleges that the Department of Children and Family Services failed to use "due diligence" to locate Thomas Smith. It claims the agency never notified Smith, who had continued making child support payments, that his daughter was in foster care and never gave him a chance to claim her.
...
That is just sad. A one liner- but still , needs to be said. Very sad for all involved. Except for the state, that can do no wrong apparently.
To be fair, those offices are always grossly undermanned, underpaid, underfunded and can not hire enough qualified personel, due to all the above.
I know quite a few social workers, and they do the best they can with what they have- which is never enough.
To be fair, those offices are always grossly undermanned, underpaid, underfunded and can not hire enough qualified personel, due to all the above.
I know quite a few social workers, and they do the best they can with what they have- which is never enough.
Bikerdad:
Off topic, but you struck that nerve. "The king can do no wrong." What we use to justify this thing that we call "sovereign immunity." Or, the sovereign is immune since the king can do no wrong.
As a lawyer and a citizen and a resident, and not necessarily in that order, at least not all of the time, but lord, the times that I have wanted to say, you know, judge, if there's a good reason to say that one ought not to be able to sue the state for this, that, and the other thing, then let's state that good reason and so provide in our law. Otherwise, we don't have a king, and as near as I can remember, we don't have a king precisely because our forbears determined that the king had in fact done wrong, so much so that they called him a "tyrant." So, judge, I trust that the court knows that the doctrine enunuciated and relied on is nothing more and other than the apology for tyranny, and as such is no apology at all. But if you must...
As I said, you struck that nerve. To repeat that phrase when we don't even have a king, or some other potentate of claimed like sovereignty, and that because of our history, well,....welcome to the land of the Orwellian thought process and, again, it is just me, but.......danger Wil Robinson!
Off topic, but you struck that nerve. "The king can do no wrong." What we use to justify this thing that we call "sovereign immunity." Or, the sovereign is immune since the king can do no wrong.
As a lawyer and a citizen and a resident, and not necessarily in that order, at least not all of the time, but lord, the times that I have wanted to say, you know, judge, if there's a good reason to say that one ought not to be able to sue the state for this, that, and the other thing, then let's state that good reason and so provide in our law. Otherwise, we don't have a king, and as near as I can remember, we don't have a king precisely because our forbears determined that the king had in fact done wrong, so much so that they called him a "tyrant." So, judge, I trust that the court knows that the doctrine enunuciated and relied on is nothing more and other than the apology for tyranny, and as such is no apology at all. But if you must...
As I said, you struck that nerve. To repeat that phrase when we don't even have a king, or some other potentate of claimed like sovereignty, and that because of our history, well,....welcome to the land of the Orwellian thought process and, again, it is just me, but.......danger Wil Robinson!
QUOTE(KivrotHaTaavah @ Jul 21 2006, 04:01 AM)
Bikerdad:
Off topic, but you struck that nerve. "The king can do no wrong." What we use to justify this thing that we call "sovereign immunity." Or, the sovereign is immune since the king can do no wrong.
As a lawyer and a citizen and a resident, and not necessarily in that order, at least not all of the time, but lord, the times that I have wanted to say, you know, judge, if there's a good reason to say that one ought not to be able to sue the state for this, that, and the other thing, then let's state that good reason and so provide in our law. Otherwise, we don't have a king, and as near as I can remember, we don't have a king precisely because our forbears determined that the king had in fact done wrong, so much so that they called him a "tyrant." So, judge, I trust that the court knows that the doctrine enunuciated and relied on is nothing more and other than the apology for tyranny, and as such is no apology at all. But if you must...
As I said, you struck that nerve. To repeat that phrase when we don't even have a king, or some other potentate of claimed like sovereignty, and that because of our history, well,....welcome to the land of the Orwellian thought process and, again, it is just me, but.......danger Wil Robinson!
Yes, but remember, the justification used for soveriegn immunity today isn't that the government is infallible, rather, its that it would be unfair to penalize the public purse for the malfeasance of some gov't employees. (Of course, I believe the same employees are shielded from liability as well, so..... the buck doesn't stop anywhere)
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Jul 11 2006, 02:18 PM)
First off, the entire CS system is INCREDIBLY anti-father biased, as is the whole legal system, I know this from personal experiance as a child and as a father.
It is incredibly hard for a man to keep track of his kids, or get any information whatsoever, if he is non-custodial- they basically treat you like human garbage, the system only thinks of you as a walking wallet and sperm donor, and you can hear the contempt they have for you in the first couple sentences.
For quite a few years I was a regular in the Usenet Alt.Support.Divorce forum. Given the number of times I've heard this complaint, even from lawyers, I suspect the attitude CrusingRam speaks of is quite common.
As a divorced father even getting the school to send a extra copy of the kids grade cards has been like a episode of Mission Impossible.
On the questions at hand...
1) What should be done to prevent fiascos like this from happening?
I believe joint, physical and legal custody should become the legal norm.
2) Given the number of children who have no contact with the non-custodial parent while residing in different states, how common do you think this sort of situation may be?
Sadly it's too common... there is a little game where the parent with physical custody will use any excuse to deny visation to punish the non-custodial parent. To exercise visitation the non-custodial parent has to pay a lawyer to go back to court, another bill ontop of the child support already being paid. Eventually most men run out of money going in and out of court that will only slap the mom's hands.
3) Would you chalk this up to simple bureaucratic bungling, a natural and inexorable outcome of a corrupt system, or somewhere in between?
I'd call it the result of a system who's only real focus is to move money, getting it's cut along the way.
4) What should be done to the mother?
This is a case of criminal fraud (IMO). However since it was aided by the state, the state should pay back all moneys paid as of the date of the childs death.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.