posted on August 1, 2005 09:00:18 AM new
OK - neat idea - but other than increase sales of disposable phones what is this really going to accomplish?
~~~~~~~~~~~
By STEPHANIE STOUGHTON / Associated Press
If you owe child support in Virginia, the next cellular call you receive might be from the state Department of Social Services.
Frustrated with soaring delinquent payments, the agency recently sent administrative subpoenas to wireless service providers, demanding information about 48 of the state's worst offenders.
Nick Young, director of the department's child support enforcement division, says parents now owe $2.1 billion in back payments in Virginia, and the total grows every year. "I am trying to stem the tide," he said.
Child support organizations say Virginia appears to be the first state to tap wireless service providers in a bid to track down elusive parents.
Officials with the groups say they aren't surprised, considering other tough actions taken by the state. Virginia was the first to allow boots to be place on delinquent parents' automobiles statewide and is aggressive about having driver's licenses revoked after people don't pay up, said Kay Cullen, a spokeswoman for the National Child Support Enforcement Association.
Debbie Kline, executive director for the Association for Children for Enforcement of Support, says other states should follow Virginia's lead in requesting information from wireless service providers.
"Not everyone is as innovative as Nick and Virginia seem to be," she said. "That's the unfortunate part of this whole issue."
Virginia officials decided to contact cell phone companies after they had exhausted other resources, including government agencies and businesses. Those resources, they say, do not always work with parents who change jobs, move around and purposely dodge caseworkers.
Young says he figured that delinquent parents, like most American moms and dads, own cell phones even if they don't have land lines. So in late June, he issued the first batch of administrative subpoenas to Verizon, Sprint, Cingular and T-Mobile, seeking phone numbers and addresses for 48 people who owe child support payments.
Two wireless companies had not responded as of Friday, and the state attorney general's office has sent warning letters, Young said. He declined to mention the companies' names.
The other companies provided information on 19 people, who already are being targeted. In some cases, the enforcement division is seeking warrants for their arrests. In others, caseworkers are calling cell phone numbers and leaving messages with deadbeat parents.
"Some of them are quite surprised," Young said.
A second batch of subpoenas went out to Nextel, Ntelos and Alltel on Tuesday, and agency officials are hopeful they will receive information on the remaining 29 people who owe money.
Eventually, the program may be expanded to cover all delinquent parents.
Social services departments in Virginia and other states have the authority to issue administrative subpoenas so they can gather information about delinquent parents without going to court.
Young says he wants to work out long-term relationships with the wireless service providers, much like the enforcement division has with the state's largest utility, banks and other government agencies.
But so far, he has had little luck convincing the wireless companies to voluntarily turn over information. Some of the firms, including Verizon Wireless, say they only produce customer information after receiving subpoenas or court orders.
John Johnson, a Verizon Wireless spokesman, says he doesn't envision any arrangement that would circumvent the company's requirements.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
posted on August 1, 2005 10:16:03 AM newdisposable phones??....I haven't even heard of such an item. hmmm...
But there too....unless they pay for them with cash...it'd be traceable from CC's.
I think this could work...and I approve of it being tried. Taxpayers are tired of picking up the tab for non-supportive parents. The phone companies that are not willing to cooperate....will just force leglislation to be passed...I'd guess.
I think this is something the majority of taxpayers would strongly support.
And in the article it mentions things that are happening in some states. I thought I'd read quit a while back that one or two states had also decided to not renew drivers licenses of the dead-beat parents too. [shrug]
Hope this concept catches on and spreads to all the states.
posted on August 1, 2005 09:41:32 PM new
How about fixing the real problem. Make Joint physical custody the default so both parents actually parent the children. Then there is no need for child support at all. Each parent would be responsible for the children when in their posession.
Shame on Virginia for not truely fixing the problem, only increasing it.
.
.
.
Alive in 2005
posted on August 1, 2005 10:14:47 PM new
I'd agree with that too, stonecold.
But there would be the cases of where one parent might not be able to properly take care of a child....drinking or drug problems being a couple.
I think father's should have more fair custody rights....they're as much a parent as the mother is in many cases.
And I do think good fathers get the raw end of the stick.
posted on August 2, 2005 12:05:08 AM new
Wow - now that is a dumbass idea if ever I heard one. You have a parent that is abusive, neglectful, an alcoholic, drug problems... who cares... give them joint custody. Sounds like a wonderful way to get out of support. Afterall, all you have to do is not pick up the kids. You don't have to pay for anything and you are legally absolved of financial responsibility. I'm sure that parents that move out of state would like it to, the only time they have they have to bear financial responsibility is during two weeksof summer vacation when the kid comes to visit.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
posted on August 2, 2005 07:22:07 AM new
Ron - What does their income have to do with anything? The fact of the matter is that whether they are dirt poor or living the high-life and abusive or neglectful parent should not have custody.
That said, there are plenty of abusive people, alcoholics, drugs addicts etc out there that have healthy incomes. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
- Ann Coulter
[ edited by fenix03 on Aug 2, 2005 07:22 AM ]
posted on August 2, 2005 07:34:42 AM new
Fenix, you are right. However it would be necessary for the courts to decide who was unfit to parent.
Until that time they should be allowed joint parenting and no child support.
Also if the child was not born of wedlock, then the woman that "chose" to have the baby against the man's wishes should be the only one responsible.
Ron
posted on August 2, 2005 11:24:11 AM newWow - now that is a dumbass idea if ever I heard one. You have a parent that is abusive, neglectful, an alcoholic, drug problems...
So the dumbassed demomorons want to penalize fit fathers just because there are a few bad apples. By the way, did you know that the percentage of deadbeat parents are higher for women then men?
Yes, the default should be and needs to be joint physical custody and then deal with the true deadbeats. They way it is now is all fathers are labeled as unfit parents and simply become money pits for the government. The major side effect is the crime rates of children of mother only homes is nearly three times higher than that of homes where the children live with both parents roughly half the time.
Also, did you know that 75% of all deadbeat parents really don't want to be, but the government and their screwy system makes then into a deadbeat? Did you know that even before you are required to pay child support, you are already in arrears which labels you a deadbeat according to all government agencies? Of course not, but then again you are a very stupid demomoron, like there is any other kind.
.
.
.
Alive in 2005
posted on August 2, 2005 12:43:43 PM new
Stonecold, how would you work that? What about school? What if each parent lives miles apart? How could being jockeyed back & forth be good for the child?
posted on August 2, 2005 01:44:37 PM new
::So the dumbassed demomorons want to penalize fit fathers just because there are a few bad apples.::
Custody matters are decided by courts based on fitness of thye individuals and I don't think even you can say that every situation is the same or that they should be treated as such.
::By the way, did you know that the percentage of deadbeat parents are higher for women then men?::
By the way, did you notice that I never used "mother" or "father" as I am well aware that there are as many unfit mothers as there are fathers.
But then why in the world would I expect you to take notice the finer points of a conversation.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
posted on August 2, 2005 03:06:31 PM newCustody matters are decided by courts based on fitness of thye individuals.....
When all things are equal...both good parents, both financially, mentally and physically able to raise the child....the court almost always gives custody to the mother....and dad only gets everyother weekend...and one day during the week. That is unless the parents come up with their own agreement.
That situation IS VERY unfair to fathers. They are seperated from their children....no different than a mother having her child taken from her most of the month. Especially when there is no reason for it.
At this point in time....the mother ALWAYS has the advantage....unless she's not fit.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on August 2, 2005 03:46:42 PM newWhat about school? What if each parent lives miles apart? How could being jockeyed back & forth be good for the child?
You almost answered your own question. One of the larger problems now is the mother is allowed to move anywhere with the kids and the father cannot do a thing about it. If they go back to court, the courts always rule that the move is OK. Never do they rule in the best interest of the child which would be to keep them in their same neighborhood and/or schools. This joint thing solves this. Both parents would need to live within reasonable distance of the kids school(s) and if either parent decides to move, then they forfeit their right to physical custody. It is so simple, and it is very, very hard to understand until you enter the family divorce industry system.
