More custodial parents fall below poverty line as child support payment rates drop

Bad economy is taking toll on custodial parents

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Sqweebie Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 2:32 p.m.

    To Clarissa: Your father can still be sued for back child support regardless of how old you are. It will stay on his credit report for life and can keep him from buying a house or new car. I have an uncle who was sued for back child support and his exwife won even though the kids were adults when it happened.

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 13, 2011 3:19 p.m.

    It's all Bush's fault!! Somehow he personally oversees the bad hand given to people all around the world. At least that is what obama would like you to believe.

  • Clarissa Layton, UT
    Dec. 12, 2011 8:37 p.m.

    Sad. Just another example of the devastation from divorce. Selfishness. I'm still wondering if my father feels any guilt for abandoning me when I was ten and not paying child support, therefore sending us into poverty. Luckily, I had a great Mom who worked hard and married another great Man who eventually adopted me. Children should be the ones who matter. Hatred and revengefulness cause many of the problems mentioned. Last Days.

  • dale richards Green River, Utah
    Dec. 12, 2011 7:13 p.m.

    Those individuals who do not pay child support should not be able to purchase a
    fishing or hunting license in the state. I know Colorado does this and we might want to follow their example. It seems to be a solution to dead beats.

  • Hawkyo SYRACUSE, UT
    Dec. 12, 2011 5:31 p.m.

    Will all of the actual adults in the room please raise their hand?
    Personal responsibility and a nurturing attitude toward our kids has been lost. I've seen parents that milk the gov system for all its worth, squander child support and go have another kid to get more. The ones who suffer are the children. Shameful that our society allows deadbeats to abuse and neglect children like that. What most of these deadbeats(moms and dads) really need is some corporal punishment, but it's too late for that to do any good.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Dec. 12, 2011 2:36 p.m.

    Re: ClarkKent | 12:10 p.m. Dec. 12, 2011
    "There have been many studies of children in joint custody households"

    Parents who have worked out some formula for joint custody of their children can lie to themselves all they want but the fact of the matter is that children need stability in order to reach their potential. It is unfortunate that selfish adults put their own personal wants and agendas ahead of their children's. I feel sorry for children who don't live in homes with both of their happily married bio-moms and dads.

  • VIDAR Murray, UT
    Dec. 12, 2011 12:53 p.m.

    DeltaFoxtrot | 12:22 p.m. Dec. 12, 2011

    yeah, that a great Idea, pay 10 to 20 thousand dollars to hire an attorney, pay for a home study.
    Then go into court and have nothing happen.
    Anyone who wants equality with the sexes, needs to start with divorce court.
    In divorce court, men are punished, for the marriage not working out, regardless who is really to blame.
    And then people wonder why young men do not want to get married.
    maybe it should be considered, that they have seen how their father was treated, and figure they want no part of it.

  • DeltaFoxtrot West Valley, UT
    Dec. 12, 2011 12:22 p.m.

    @technonerd7: If the situation with your kids is really that bad, sue for custody.

  • ClarkKent Bountiful, Utah
    Dec. 12, 2011 12:10 p.m.

    Rifleman | 12:00 p.m. Dec. 12, 2011
    "Translation: Bounce children around constantly from one home, school, church and set of friends to another home, school, church and set of friends. What could possibly be wrong with an arrangement like that?"

    There have been many studies of children in joint custody households .. perhaps before you jump to the negative conclusion you have made you should educate yourself about this issue.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Dec. 12, 2011 12:00 p.m.

    Re: ClarkKent | 9:18 a.m. Dec. 12, 2011
    "Give each parent 50% of the time with their children."

    Translation: Bounce children around constantly from one home, school, church and set of friends to another home, school, church and set of friends. What could possibly be wrong with an arrangement like that?

  • VIDAR Murray, UT
    Dec. 12, 2011 11:31 a.m.


    I agree. Joint custody should be the norm, not exception, unfortunately the court system has a built in incentive for a woman to not agree to joint custody; she gets more money.
    All a woman has to do if she wants more money, is say she will not work with the man in joint custody
    The court then gives her custody most of the time and orders the father to pay child support.
    The state even has an agency set up to do nothing but collect the child support.
    There is not a similar state agency that ensures that the visitations orders are carried out.
    It is in a Childs best interest for there to be joint custody. Why the courts do not push for what is better for the child makes no sense.
    There should not be an economic incentive to seek sole custody.
    Failure to pay child support is better categorized as dead beat mom, they are more likely then fathers to not pay child support.

  • ClarkKent Bountiful, Utah
    Dec. 12, 2011 9:18 a.m.

    Give each parent 50% of the time with their children. This needs to become the norm with few exceptions. If one of the parents doesn't want 50% of the time or doesn't spend 50% of the time, then give that parent's job to another parent who does. A parent who does not want to spend time with his/her children is of no value to the community or to his or her family ... let them live on the streets as far as I'm concerned.

  • Sasha Pachev Provo, UT
    Dec. 12, 2011 7:52 a.m.

    Why is it impractical or illegal to run an automated background check before selling somebody alcohol or tobacco? It is definitely practical - we have the technology. The argument that the buyers of these substances make is that they can use them responsibly. Let's keep them honest and call their bluff. I see nothing illegal or immoral in that.
    The problem with that, however, is that it will put too many businesses that profit from such sales out of business. So this will never fly. And the argument will be something along the lines of "this is against the Constitution because it infringes on personal liberties", of course. If we were that concerned about personal liberties, we would not tolerate things like the government dictating to us how fast we can drive, for example. But we have different concerns. Some are interested in feeding their addictions, while others want to profit from them. This creates enough critical mass for most of the rest to go with the flow. Thus we get what we deserve - wide-spread poverty.

  • SnowCanyonDad SANTA CLARA, UT
    Dec. 12, 2011 6:42 a.m.

    If people with children want to divorce, the courts need to set up a trust. However much child support you will pay upon divorce, needs to be put in trust account, with a responsible adult as the trustor. Have three kids under 10 at say $300 each a month? Save up $900.00 dollars a month ($10,800 annul)times at least 8 years, $86,400 and have it put into a trust with strict withdrawl requirements, ie: reimbursement for living expenses, (you must show validated receipts). Then you would see divorce rates plummet. It is too easy to get and way too hard on the kids. It would work for abuse cases also, the abuser gives up everything they own, sell it and put it in the trust.

  • My2Cents Taylorsville, UT
    Dec. 12, 2011 4:30 a.m.

    One commenter made note that the child support system needs an overhaul and I totally agree with it. Children are pawns in blackmail and misappropriation and spending of funds called child support. I know of women who would squander child support on their cohabiting boy friends to supply beer, booze, and drugs for parties using child support funds. We need to classify dead-beat moms or custodial parents too that do not use child support for the children.

    Collection of child support by the state should not allow them to rob the fathers and children of 10-25% of child support funds to pay the department of child welfare for operating and labor capital for its workers and legal processes. Some think that this department taking their share of money from children motivates the department to keep the process of garnishing dads earnings their priorities.

    I don't know about most jobs or laws, but it seems rather criminal to motivate a government agency by promising them a share of the contraband or confiscated loot intended for the care and welfare of children. That's like telling the tax collectors their pay is commensurate with how much they collect in taxes.

  • Grammy3 SOUTH JORDAN, UT
    Dec. 11, 2011 11:32 p.m.

    I read all about this and it makes me sad on how this whole thing is about Child Support. When I was a single mom my ex was really good about paying me but when I remarried he totally stop paying me any. He was self employed so I could not go in and have his wages garnished. I did the best that I could and he paid me when he felt like it. Now my husband who I am married to now ex was a pain in the butt and they were always fighting it was hard on the Children. She would not let my husband have his fair share of visitation but because there is not a place that one can go to stop her from doing that my husband lost out a lot in having his children for his turn to have them. We did not have extra money to take her back to court. Now they are grown up so we see them often. I just wished that they would make some kind of punishment to the ex spouse if they with hold the children and use them to get back to the other parent.

  • Sqweebie Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 11, 2011 8:56 p.m.

    To Tecknonerd - you're right there should be someone watching where the child support money goes that the ex is getting for the kids. My brother was buying diapers, food and clothes for his kids and the ex was saying that she didn't get any kind of support for them. He started keeping all the recepts and showed them to the child support office every month. He started paying the state the money rather than giving it to her - she couldn't lie any more about not getting monies from him.

  • Some1outthere Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 11, 2011 8:52 p.m.

    And as long as employers who do credit checks on potential employees if you owe child support they see it as a black mark and many employers will not hire thinking that the person is a deadbeat parent and someone who doesn't know how to manage their money. Yes look at the way the economy is going right now - not many jobs out there and no matter how well qualified a person is for a job if they owe child support there is a good chance that they will not get hired. There are many employers who don't want to be bothered with garnishing an employers paycheck.

  • technonerd7 orem, ut
    Dec. 11, 2011 6:17 p.m.

    Right, because the only problem with the system is the men. Women are not to blame for any problems with the child support system. That is such a BS answer. I set up the account with ORS and my child support gets garnished out of my check every payday. I am never behind. You want to know how often my kids get new clothes? When I or my ex-MIL buy the clothes for them. wanna know who feeds the kids? The state with free lunches and food stamps, and the bishops store house. Where does the 1500 a month go? Good question, not to the utilities, or they would not be shut off all the time. Are there bad men not paying support payments? Yes, but there are bad mothers not using the funds correctly either. The whole system needs to be overhauled to fix it. Payer needs to pay what is needed and receiving parent needs to be help responsible for where the money goes, including children taken away for neglect.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Dec. 11, 2011 6:13 p.m.

    Re: Sasha Pachev | 5:06 p.m. Dec. 11, 2011
    "not so necessary things that some men do not think they can live without"

    What about about deadbeat women who owe money to the custodial fathers?

    Your suggestion is both impractical ..... and illegal. Best solution is for women to be far more selective in the men they chose to have children with.

  • Sasha Pachev Provo, UT
    Dec. 11, 2011 5:06 p.m.

    This problem as a simple solution. Run a check against due child support payment database before you sell somebody alcohol, tobacco, video games, and a few other not so necessary things that some men do not think they can live without. If the name shows up, deny the sale.