sue1958 You would be surprised at just how educated I am on this subject. I am also organized and can prioritize my work. It would be a vacation if my work load was that low. I also had a whole lot of requirements on me, Federal, State, City and many more private concerns. On the average I had inspectors looking over my shoulder every single day.

If you can not take the heat get out of the kitchen. If the job is too much for you quit and get another job. Don't blame the poor people that have to pay.

It still boils down to what I said. Let the parent that wants the child pay all the bills. He/ she wants to raise the child then he/she should have the responsibility. I think in this case we would have a lot of people that would not want to take the child, and that is why we have such a problem.

Casey it almost sounds good in theory. I do support accountability but the card system won't work.
What do you do pay a part of the water bill, electric bill and housing expense on it. Go to the grocery store and pay part of it, put some of the gas on it?
By doing that it's more government within our lives. It's a longstanding issue that in some cases the parent paying "feels" the child they are paying for isn't receiving the full benefit of those funds. It's almost impossible to impose a system that works and makes the paying parent feel like the monies are going towards the right things.
I do know of a working parent who receives $350 a month and the child care is $400. In a case like that you can validate in one easy swipe of the card. This parent still pays for food, clothing, shelter, additional gas, the list goes on and on.
I still say it's about the adults being adult enough to know that their children and their needs should come first, sometimes you can't teach it and you surely can't legislate it.

On the flip side I've seen the parent who goes to great lengths to not pay, work under the table, hide funds, but having the best vehicle, home, clothing, trips etc. It goes both ways. The system gets abused on both sides.

I do tend to think overall, in many cases the system works to a certain degree when the parents put the children first. It's the ones who abuse the system that bring a bad name to it.

I feel that if the "paying" parent has to report every move every raise. Then the parent receiving the child support should have a card like the EBT Food card. NO alcohol can be bought no cigarettes no fast food.. Clothing Medical needs housing ect. I the father with full custody of my kids, I do receive child support. And I spend every dime on my twin boys. I current know a female who has no problem spending her child support at local bar in Kent. I have no respect for her. I working with this person have also witnessed this individual spending the child support money on her "current" boyfriends probation "scram"program. For his 3rd DUI. In my opinion and ONLY my opinion feel parents like her are the ones who DON'T DESERVE the child support! There should be a limit to what child support can be spent on.

Well, some very strong viewpoints. I'll simply respond by saying - Man or Woman - if you are a parent then you have a moral responsibility to your children.

To Dowhatsright - you've NO idea whatsoever the state and federal REQUIREMENTS that are mandated to the county CSEA case managers. As in all things in life - judge not, lest ye be judged.

This is a very difficult job - the stress level is phenominal. I was simply trying to enlighten some people on the demands placed upon these case managers so others might understand. Clearly - I missed my mark with you. Big Deal? You calculated 3.2 cases per day. If that were true - and it is NOT - what then does the case manager do with the average 20 phone calls per day from the clients and their needs?

Educate yourself, then express your opinion. It would hold so much more merit.

Gucci:
I agree with your thoughts on accountability.

Fiscal accountability on the part of the parent receiving the child support. Receipts, including grocery store, clothing, etc.

I've seen the desperation in the person that is paying the support as they know their child isn't the recipient of the funds. Just as much as that happens there are very many responsible parents who do what's in the best interest of the children that "they" conceived.

I don't doubt that some have used their children as a "meal" ticket. Just look at our welfare, food stamp programs and it's evident.

Again, think about who you could possibly be conceiving a child with in advance and imagine the worst case scenario unfortunately many are living it and it's the kids who suffer in the end.

Lets not forget some wonderful Dad's are out there and are doing the right thing!!Mom's too!
I don't know if the license thing is effective or not. If they aren't paying with it, what's going to motivate them to pay without it??? A person will take care of their children if they want to and will devise ways around the system if they don't want to.
Amazing you have to enact laws to get people to take care of their very own flesh and blood.

This is a touchy one. Many differing opinions. I will throw mine in.

I do not think the license should be suspended for lack of child support. It's an odd plan that creates an irony that you cannot get to work to pay your support. I would be in favor of weekend or "day off work" jail for MAJOR offenders. Maybe a public registry of MAJOR offenders. It should adversely affect your credit score if you are substantially in arrears. That might get the attention of the deadbeat moms and dads. Suspending the license will only make it worse in my opinion.

How about the party recieving the support keeping reciepts and or detailed documentation on what is spent on the child and the cost? How about a REAL audit of the recipient by CSEA yearly or bi-yearly instead of the "fly bys" they do now? wouldnt that be in the best interest of the child and serve all parties fairly?? I do honestly believe the male is often at a disadvantage in these issues. There is unfairness in the current system in that regard. I think the deadbeat moms are overlooked and not held to the same standard.

Having one of the parents choose who wants the kid and is responsible: Well, thats just not "parenting" to me. That allows one to walk away with no responsibility or accountability. I believe that if you play, you pay. You dont have to get married, fall in love and have happily ever after. You just need to do the right thing. Maybe we are all wrong. Shouldnt the child recieving love and real parenting be the most important thing? Mostly agree with you dowhatsright - not this on one.

On the other hand DUI's should be FELONY with a suspension and jail time EVERY time, first or 15th offense. If you drive drunk your A$$ belongs in the pokey and you sure as H#ll should not have driving "privledges". People die, bodies are broken and lives and families are ruined from that garbage. The cemeteries are full of the drunk drivers victims. And spare me "the first time offender had a monmentarty one time lapse in judgement story". More people are killed by first time offenders than by multiple offenders. The multiples just get the heavy press. And in my opinion if you get caught the first time, It sure isn't the first time you did it. (No, I have never driven drunk - EVER..Do I drink? Yes, socially and moderately)

Did you know you cannot enter the country of Canada if you are a DUI convicted offender?? Did you know it is a federal offense there? I dont always agree with the Canadian way of govermnment but they do consider it a felony and if you have done it and been convicted, they dont want you on thier roads killing and maiming thier citizens!! COOL I say.

Regardless of who the absent parent is, man or woman, these children deserve to be supported emotionally, mentally and physically. I have been trying to get child support from a "man" for the last 15 yrs. My boys are 17 and 16 and have not seen a dime from their father since our seperation. I have been liberal with their visitation with him whenever he felt like playing daddy. He has been to prison, had his professional license taken away, driver's license and is now on 5 yrs probation. Portage County has let him off with a slap on the hand several times. He still has not paid. He is only ordered to pay $ 250.00 per month for 2 children. He has learned to get around garnishment because he works on commission and does not file taxes. I don't agree with taking the license of every parent who does not pay. There can be circumstances where the non-custodial parent is sick or unable to work. However, in my case he has been given ample opportunity to pay and has refused. He rides around in expensive cars, has expensive clothes and has a nice place to live. His hand has been held long enough. If he has to take a bus to work, then that was HIS choice.
Dowhatsright..that was an ignorant statement you made about "giving up the child" You should change your name. That is NOT the right thing to do. I have raised my children without the money and would never give them up. It is the RIGHT thing to do for BOTH parents who created the child to support the child, in ALL ways.

DoWhat'sRight,
Most of the time your posts make sense to me. I'll debate this one though. I never said a kid ate 1,000 bucks a month although some teenage boys may come close... LOL
Seriously though....yes the kid would live in a house regardless but I think neighborhood, number of rooms and living arrangement is different when a child is involved. I didn't attribute 1/2 the cost of the home to the child. Children use more water, more electricity and more laundry detergent, and if your a nice parent you get cable channels you most likely wouldn't get. Clothing and school supplies are part of the "magical" child support number. So the "receiving" of the money parent basically pays for food, clothing, shelter, miscellaneous. When they calculate the paying persons child support they factor in the cost of health insurance and make appropriate reductions. Silly things I'm sure more milk, cereal, etc is consumed by children then most adults.
I agree some abuse it,actually most likely many. But don't take away from the ones who don't.

It took two people to conceive the child it takes two to raise it. I was being generous on the $500 figure, from involvement with the courts and community programs I know many receive in the 250-400 range. The deduction for claiming a child is minute when you factor in the effective tax rate.
Remember children need haircuts, seasonal clothes, attend other childrens birthday parties, Halloween costumes, school activity fees, school lunch money, babysitting, daycare, allowances, bikes, orthodontist, the list goes on and on.

I do agree with your math on the cases they handle. They forget to mention the number of cases where the paying person pays on time and there is never a problem which I'm sure accounts for at least 40% or more. So that cuts the number of cases almost in half.

Also remember on your she also needs to give $500 a month. They use a percentage scale. Basically take both incomes add them together using that number they have a chart of what a child of two parents making that total amount "costs" to raise per month. So in our earlier example lets say the combined income dictates the child cost $834.00 per month and the dad makes 60% of the total combined income. He'd pay 60% of the 834.00 which is 500.00.
Just a FYI in a scenario where brings home $2500 a month $30,000 a year and she brings home $l500 a month $18,000 a year is what will get you at the he pays $500 mark. If the couple had 2 children the child support would move up to about $800, the take into consideration that the children are in the same house. These amounts are reduced by medical insurance paid as well. So 20% or 33% of income left over after taxes, social security and unemployment taxes towards support, of a child they produced together.
Ok sorry had to get on that subject!

Big deal you have 800 cases. Let us look at this.

There is 365 days in a year. Take off weekends that is leaves 261 days . Each of the 261 days would be handled by only 3.2 cases a day. Tough yep.

Also, you have to remember that the child is the woman's also. Let us say she also has to give $500 a month . They would make $1000.00 a month. The child does not require his own house, but would share the home of it's parents even if there was not a divorce. So that should not be considered. Medical care, which in most case is the husband's insurance and is over and above the child support. Food Ok, I am sure that a kid could eat well on the $1000.00 a month. Clothes yes that is child support, however, in most cases the man has to pay for school supplies etc which often includes clothes. Here again, the woman would have to pay for half the clothes also.

My solution is simple. Let whoever wants to claim the child has to claim the responsibility for raising him/her also. I think a lot of women would be giving up their children.

"O" geez let's not get started on the lifestyle of the woman again, please.
Ok, if she is driving a brand new car, (which is safe I'm sure) and the child is malnourished, in need of medical services, allowed no recreational activities, doesn't have a bed to sleep in, a roof over it's head and clothes appropriate for the different seasons than you have a gripe.
There are cases where the parent collecting the child support over indulges and the child suffers. In many cases that is so not true, don't lump everyone together.
Lets take a made up example:
A women who has a l,000 per month house payment, pays 400 a month for a car payment, 400 on groceries, 200 on gas, and 300 for utilities and feeds, clothes and allows her child to participate in activities and receives "oh" lets say $500 per month in child support. Let's also say in addition to clothing her child she buys a $200 handbag... So do we say she lives in a better house, drives a new car because or has a fancy handbag because of the $500 he provided or do we say she and the child have a good life and the child isn't going without? I've heard people try to win this argument and I'm like "hey, did you pay for her car, her house, her clothes, your child support can't possibly cover it all?" What about the things provided to the child.
Without a child, she could live in a one bedroom condo, or live with someone, have dates pay for dinner, it's not inexpensive to raise children as we should all know.
When you total up the stuff a parent buys a child, school supplies, school pictures, activity fees, shoes, shocks, clothing, toiletries and all the extra stuff people with children don't buy at the grocery store it is not a small amount. The gas used to drive kids to and from activities adds up as well.
Grant it there are dead beat parents on both sides of the equation but don't throw the one receiving child support under the bus unless you look at the whole picture.
As far as the parent not paying, as the courts can attest they go to great lengths to avoid their responsibility and in the end this no drivers license was just another way to try and get the attention of the people who abandon their responsibility.
Ok, I'm off my pulpit for now..........Smiles!