After reading “New child support enforcement used; Kansas officials now check applicant names on hunting, fishing licenses for anyone who owes $5,000 or more” by David Klepper (10/29, Local), all I could do was shake my head and laugh. Most people paying child support are men, but does Kansas actually think they all hunt and fish?
What about all those deadbeats who don’t hunt or fish? When are they going to be tracked down and made to pay child support? This issue is so big, and nothing really seems to be done to make these deadbeats pay. Kansas needs to implement this program with driver’s licenses’ and tag renewal, not hunting and fishing licenses. Once they find these people, Kansas then needs to start garnishing wages and taking tax returns to get these deadbeats on track.
To many of those owed money, this current program will seem like a joke, not a solution.
Pier Miller
Lee’s Summit
Editor’s note: Kansas can impose driving restrictions for parents who owe more than $500 in back child support.
A sign of the times? Deadbeat parents do not care enough about their children to pay child support, but they will pay up in order to get a hunting license.
M. Dinkmeyer
Gladstone
I have been divorced for going on 7 years & I chose to go to work to raise my family. I was never on state assistance, I have a child support order that went in affect in Oct. 2003 for only $222.00 a month for 2 children, and I'm at the bottom of the totem pole to receive help with collecting my back support. Not that I would ever get any of it from him anyways, but one would think that the state would be more than happy to help collect my back support for the simple fact that I wasn't on welfare. Nope not one ounce of help. My children want nothing to do with him anyways because of his self destructing, and abusive habits. Me on the other hand would like to see some of the money that is owed to me, it is very hard to raise two children on a low paying income, but I have done it.
So to all of the people that are on welfare, and keep having babies so that you can collect some more of the great benefits that truthfully are terrible I just want to tell you THANK YOU! For robbing the people that do work to take care of there responsibilities and not rely on others to do it for them. Thank you for being at the top of the list to get help with collecting your back child support, while I'm at the bottom of that list because I didn't collect that cheese & a big fat check. Thank you dead beat Dad's & welfare recipient's for all your help, you have made life so much easier for those of us that do work!
I could go on & on about how I believe things should be, but why waste my time on it anymore? Nothing will ever change the way it is, never has & never will. It is what it is.
Posted by: Pam | January 04, 2011 at 11:36 AM
spread yo legs, collect support and get that fatherless state help!
Posted by: patton | January 17, 2010 at 10:57 AM
WHAT MAKES ME LAUGH IS NOW THEY WILL STEAL A NEW HEALTH CARE TAX FROM ALL OF YOU FOR THE FATHERLESS!
Posted by: patton | January 17, 2010 at 10:52 AM
I THINK THE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO BUTT OUT OF ALL OF OUR LIVES!! WE NEED TO REDUCE GOVERNMENT, ENCOURAGE THE FAMILY UNIT. STOP FACILITATING FATHERLESS CHILDREN.
Posted by: patton | January 17, 2010 at 10:50 AM
I HAVE BEEN PUNISHED BY NOT SEEING MY CHILDREN.
HAVING TO PAY ON A CHILD THAT ISNT MINE FOR 22 YEARS.
HAVING TO PAY A STATE AGENCY CHILD SUPPORT WHEN THIS IS A PRIVATE FAMILY ISSUE AND THE STATE HAS NO RIGHT TO BUTT IN!
THE MONEY I PAID WENT TO A BOOB JOB, TUMMY TUCK AND THE LIKE.
BEING CALLED A DEADBEAT WHEN SHE IS THE DEADBEAT THAT STOLE MY KIDS.
NOT HAVING MY CHILD VISITATION ENFORCED BY A STATE AGENCY THAT SHOULD OFFER EQUAL REPRESENTATION TO NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS.
Posted by: patton | January 17, 2010 at 10:48 AM
I HAVE paid support for 22 years. Once the state got involved I never got to see my kids AND THEY KEPT RAISING IT EVEN THOUGH I MADE THE SAME WAGES. I FOUND OUT MY OLDEST CHILD IS NOT MINE AND SINCE MY NAME IS ON THE CERTIFICATE I HAVE NO RE-COURSE. IMAGINE THAT?? They said custody is a civil matter not a state issue. So in order for me to see my kids on court ordered days I would have to hire a lawyer. Okay if I owe her money that is a civil matter but the state will jump on this civil matter and create NON-CUSTODIAL PARENT FINANCIAL STATE MICRO-MANAGEMENT AGENCIES TO GET THE MONEY LIKE A SLAVE TAX BEFORE WE SEE OUR CHECKS. WHERE IS MY NONCUSTODIAL REPRESENTATION TO ENFORCE CUSTODY FOR MY VISITATION RIGHTS? WHERE IS THE CUSTODIAL PARENT CUSTODY STATE ENFORCEMENT MICROMANAGEMENT AGENCY? THIS IS DISCRIMINATION AND UNEQUAL REPRESENTATION. IT IS A PLOT TO DESTROY THE CHILDS RELATIONSHIP WITH FATHERS. DADS ARE SEEN AS MONEY TREES! THE STATES JOB IS TO DESTROY THE FAMILY UNIT, DUMB YOU DOWN AND TAKE AWAY YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL AND GOD GIVEN RIGHTS! I CAN NO LONGER KILL THE KINGS DEER, BUY A WEAPON AT A STORE, ONLY PRIVATE SALE. THEY ALSO TOOK MY PASSPORT AND MY RIGHT TO TRAVEL ALL WITHOUT BEING TRIED AND CONVICTED IN A COURT. ALL DONE BY SECRET COURTS!! SO THEY CAN KISS MY ASS! THEY ARE TYRANTS AND I MAKE PAYMENTS EVERY MONTH.
Posted by: patton | January 17, 2010 at 10:40 AM
What they need to do is take money out of the picture and ALLOW fathers to provide. The prblem isn't deadbeats.
You are not allow to provide only fork over unaccountable money of which you receive no tax break. The custodial parent receives double incentive, they receive EIC and CTCC and do not pay taxes on the often robust "support" they receive. Maybe they shold also make the same standard for married prents, you MUST send your money to the State. When they screw up and deem they need more money, you either pay or go to debtors prison. So much for the US Constitution.
Posted by: NoMoreMrNiceGuy | December 11, 2007 at 02:05 PM
As long as the father is treated as nothing but a money tree, no rights other than the "right" to pay, there will be huge resentment about child support. This leads to increased episodes of non-payment.
If you want to increase payments, the first thing to do is start enforcing visitation rights on behalf of the father. The more involved the father in the child's life, the more likely he is to pay.
Posted by: jack | November 03, 2007 at 03:05 PM