The Legal Definition of Child Support

**Rainman357** · 01-20-2009, 07:56 AM

My question involves child support in the State of: The state is not important because we are talking about the definition of the words " Child Support ". As I have read and understand it, Child Support, " Is the non-custodial parents ongoing obligation of monthly payments for the purpose of support or maintenance for his children. So once his children have become adults and they are no-longer receiving any type of support or maintenance from payments being made by the non-custodial parent to the state. How can the debt to the state still carry the definition of " Child Support ". The debt should change from Child Support to a normal civil debt. Every definition I have found for the meaning of Child Support suggest that the money being paid, in some way is going to the support of children. If money being paid is no longer, partly or in whole providing support to children then it is no longer or can no longer be called " Child Support ". Please, if someone can answer this for me it would be appreciated.

RL Texas

**iienvyme** · 01-20-2009, 09:17 AM

I would think it's because the state had to pick up where the negligent non custodial parent left off all those years financially and they are required to pay the state back. I mean they could add the word "debt" in front or after the word child support, in case the negligent non custodial parent is worried that someone may see this and think they have a child "currently" that is still of age to be receiving child support.

Honestly “Who Cares” what it's called the state didn't have a child with someone so why should they be responsible to pick up where some looser decided to just drop off and leave. People neglect to remember that having a child and being a parent no matter if it's custodial or non custodial is more than "child support" or you actually getting the child or children on your court appointed "visitation" dates/times. The child will never grow up remembering what you had to pay each month in child support or what the court appointed as your exact pick up and drop off days and times...but they will remember the non custodial parents lack of support no matter if it's financial or emotional and they will remember the affect that had on the custodial parent and “their” lives growing up and all the things they missed out on or did without because the non custodial parent didn't care enough to "just be a parent" and in the end not only as child but even as adults they suffer.

They have problems in life socially, emotionally and it carries over into their future (education, relationships, career and even when they have their own children). With all that said someone seriously is worried about how their "DEBT" to the state shows up what on a credit report or job background check when all this could of been avoided if #1 protection was used so pregnancy didn't occur or #2 they just had a heart, compassion, and a soul that would allow them to "want" to do the right thing and be a parent.

Otherwise if you can't figure out the definition within yourself I'm sure you can Google it and take your pick of the many selections that will appear..my guess being the one that will satisfy the appetite will be the one given by a non custodial parent that has been hiding from the state to avoid paying back their "child support debt" or only sought legal advice when looking to see if they could sign over their parental rights in order to avoid having to pay child support. Good Luck to whomever needs this answer, and might you ask for forgiveness one day for the child or children that were screwed over via decision made.

**cyjeff** · 01-20-2009, 09:30 AM

Actually, it is still called "child support" because there are special laws and resultant penalties involved in the process of supporting a child that the state would lose access to if the past due amounts would be called something else.

For instance, you can lose your license for nonpayment of child support... but there is no such penalty for failure to pay a civil debt.

Since these penalties are the only "stick" the government (or, for that matter, the custodial parents) has, they are not going to be quick to give it up.

**Rainman357** · 01-20-2009, 04:23 PM

Apparently iienvyme, you are not fully educated on what is going on here in America when it comes to fathers. We as a whole are being discriminated against even if we want to be part of our children's lives. States have made it possible for mothers to take complete control by placing the mother and children on Welfare/TANIF which creates a situation where fathers, that cant afford an Attorney, to have no recourse in getting to see their kids. I am one of those fathers who had his ex disappear with my children. And never for one moment, did I not want to take care of my responsibilities when it came to providing for them, but that is hard to do when you are not aware of their whereabouts. You should not answer questions in the manner of expressing your personal feelings, it is not appreciated and not wanted. This is a site for people to receive legal help. To have questions answered by people with the knowledge of the law. Please ask questions if you wish but if you want to answer questions, do it with respect to the persons question you are attempting to answer, and keep your personal feelings to your self. I cant imagine anyone envying you because you have your head stuck in the dirt and havent a clue of what you are talking about. Your the kind of person that has created this problem by your idiotic idealistic way of looking at what is going on in the world. So do me a favor and, next time you want to voice your opinion, go to Associated Content and do so, they like fiction.

**cyjeff** · 01-20-2009, 04:57 PM

Quoting Rainman357

Apparently iienvyme, you are not fully educated on what is going on here in America when it comes to fathers. We as a whole are being discriminated against even if we want to be part of our children's lives. States have made it possible for mothers to take complete control by placing the mother and children on Welfare/TANIF which creates a situation where fathers, that cant afford an Attorney, to have no recourse in getting to see their kids. I am one of those fathers who had his ex disappear with my children. And never for one moment, did I not want to take care of my responsibilities when it came to providing for them, but that is hard to do when you are not aware of their whereabouts. You should not answer questions in the manner of expressing your personal feelings, it is not appreciated and not wanted. This is a site for people to receive legal help. To have questions answered by people with the knowledge of the law. Please ask questions if you wish but if you want to answer questions, do it with respect to the persons question you are attempting to answer, and keep your personal feelings to your self. I cant imagine anyone envying you because you have your head stuck in the dirt and havent a clue of what you are talking about. Your the kind of person that has created this problem by your idiotic idealistic way of looking at what is going on in the world. So do me a favor and, next time you want to voice your opinion, go to Associated Content and do so, they like fiction.

Was there a question in there somewhere? The system is not biased except in favor of the child.

**Rainman357** · 01-20-2009, 04:59 PM

To cy jeff

Thank you for your answer. I don't agree that it should be allowed to remain being called child support if it is the state attempting to collect money they voluntarily paid out to a mother and children. They have changed the laws when it comes to Welfare/TANIF, sense 1998 a woman can only be on assistance for two years in a span of four years and during those two years she must seek employment. If it means getting an education or whatever. The Health and Human Resources responsibilities are to follow their " Self Sufficiency " Program. I can understand The term Child Support for a mother who is collecting directly from a father and even a state collecting for money paid out while the children are minors. But once the children have pasted the age of eighteen it should not be allowed to remain being called Child Support. The reason being is that Child Support is simply that, the support of children and if none of the funds being paid by the non-custodial are being directed towards the care or maintenance of his children then he is no longer paying Child Support. States use this to cause fathers to have to pay larger monthly payments which can create a hardship on them. The whole legal system needs a drastic reconstructuring when it comes to Child Support. I think the first thing that should be done is to find the fathers and simply ask them first if it was or is their decision to not be a part of their children's lives. You would be surprised I bet, by the amount of fathers who would want to be there for their children, but the mother moved away and took his kids against his will.

**cyjeff** · 01-20-2009, 05:10 PM

Quoting Rainman357

To cy jeff

Thank you for your answer. I don't agree that it should be allowed to remain being called child support if it is the state attempting to collect money they voluntarily paid out to a mother and children.

Your consent is not necessary.

However, as a taxpayer, I will say that it is not MY job to support YOUR children and, that being said, I am VERY excited about them chasing you for repayment.

Voluntary? You mean they should have let your family starve?

They have changed the laws when it comes to Welfare/TANIF, sense 1998 a woman can only be on assistance for two years in a span of four years and during those two years she must seek employment. If it means getting an education or whatever. The Health and Human Resources responsibilities are to follow their " Self Sufficiency " Program. I can understand The term Child Support for a mother who is collecting directly from a father and even a state collecting for money paid out while the children are minors. But once the children have pasted the age of eighteen it should not be allowed to remain being called Child Support. The reason being is that Child Support is simply that, the support of children and if none of the funds being paid by the non-custodial are being directed towards the care or maintenance of his children then he is no longer paying Child Support.

Or the repayment of monies paid while the children were, well, children.

States use this to cause fathers to have to pay larger monthly payments which can create a hardship on them.

Imagine how easy it is to LIVE on welfare...

The whole legal system needs a drastic reconstructuring when it comes to Child Support. I think the first thing that should be done is to find the fathers and simply ask them first if it was or is their decision to not be a part of their children's lives. You would be surprised I bet, by the amount of fathers who would want to be there for their children, but the mother moved away and took his kids against his will.

Okay, I have heard this whining crap once too often.

I am CERTAIN that if you really really really wanted to, you could have found the mother and the children in 17 years.

Did you LOOK? I mean, really LOOK? Did you hire a PI? Did you file for visitation? Did you file for ANYTHING? ANYTHING that would have gotten her tagged for a FTA that would have stopped the support?

ANYTHING?

Then stop. You are just pissed because they finally caught up with you and you have to repay... and after you had convinced yourself that you wouldn't get hit with anything because the kids were over the age of 18.

Wrong.

If my kids were taken from me, I wouldn't rest until I found them. All it would have taken was a single court decision and then filing for a contempt of court.

**iienvyme** · 01-21-2009, 11:31 AM

I am sorry if I misunderdstood your question or what you were looking for, but as for knowing how the family law legal system is famous for discriminating against fathers, trust me I know this all to well. I currently have a billion different situations where my fiance is constantly being knocked down when it comes to the court system and his battles with his son's bad mother.

This is an open forum, normally when people want "real legal advice" they hire an attorney. People reply and give their advice on here all the time, some from experience some because of the line of work they are in or some as I did (out of reading what someone posted and feeling the need to say something about it)..I read what appeared to be a father worried about how a debt showed up under his name when it came to child support, which is if you owe it you owe it...no matter if you see your children willingly or not, in or out of your control...the mother might be bad and have taken them away they didn't make this decision themselves, which means they are still owed the support financially from you.

Again as I said if I misunderstood your point,question than I apologize but by no means am I bashing you like the rest of the family law legal system does to truly good fathers out there. Even though I am a female I am looking for help/equality for good fathers fighting their battles via the system just like you might be doing for yourself.