• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Child support, and moochers

Are people who receive child support payments "moochers"?


  • Total voters
    19

Phys251

Purge evil with Justice
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
59,157
Reaction score
50,747
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Are people who receive child support payments "moochers"?
 
If they badmouth a good father to his children or refuse to allow him free and open visitation while they try to turn his children against him, they are worse than moochers.
 
Last edited:
No. They are raising children for whom another person is partially responsible for. May as well ask if people who receive paychecks are moochers.
 
No. They are raising children for whom another person is partially responsible for. May as well ask if people who receive paychecks are moochers.

This is not always the case. Some are welfare queens who let the kid live with the other parent, so long as they get the child support payment, which they don't even use on the kid. It's often little more than one parent (the mom usually) bribing the other.
 
This is not always the case. Some are welfare queens who let the kid live with the other parent, so long as they get the child support payment, which they don't even use on the kid. It's often little more than one parent (the mom usually) bribing the other.

I have never heard of the non-custodial parent receiving child support.
 
I'm fairly impartial on this.

I lean towards giving help to those who actually need it to properly raise a child.

On the other hand I don't think having a child or children should automatically qualify you for a tax break. Though I'm not particularly against it either.
 
How can a child be a moocher?
In spite of how we like to phrase the situation, children are also not the receivers of CS. Parents/guardians are. Some parents/guardians spend the money for the kids properly, some do not.
 
If the parents jointly created the children, then why would receiving payments from the non-custodial parent be considered 'mooching'?

It's not tax payer dollars, it is the parents money.

I don't follow this thinking that it's mooching AT ALL.
 
It totally depends on the situation. My mother never used the money for my benefit. We were often homeless (lived in our care or with friends/family temporarily) and dependent on church food. Her own income and the money my dad sent via the child support system typically went to her drug habit, her hair/make-up/nails, her "clubbing" attire, or (on rare occasion) to gas for her vehicle that was only occasionally used to pick me up from school (I typically rode the bus or my bike, depending on the weather). She even had the balls to tell me once that I couldn't go live w/my dad 'cause they'd allow him to stop sending her child support checks, and she deserved that money for putting up with me.

Conversely, I have a friend who, albeit TERRIBLE at budgeting money, really does apply all of the child support she receives to the care and comfort of her children. Whether it goes to rent, food, school field trip fees, or healthcare costs...she's never used that money on herself, and she wouldn't be able to survive w/o it unless she were forced to maintain a budget w/constant supervision....and even then she'd struggle.

I always thought it was funny that my dad got saddled w/child support AND the obligation to provide health insurance. He also usually ended up being the sole provider of clothing (that didn't come from charity, anyway), school supplies, toys/entertainment (he bought me two bikes while I lived w/my mom because the one I took to Michigan got stolen and she pawned the first replacement) and basic grooming costs (occasional haircuts, toiletries, etc). His required child support was $400 a month, but he probably spent almost $1,000 in total, since he was self employed and it's expensive to insure JUST children, especially when the child lives in a different state than you do.
 
People who dodge child support payments are worse than moochers.
 
I have never heard of the non-custodial parent receiving child support.

That's because often times the parent raising the child isn't the court-appointed custodial parent in those situations.

One of my employees has a 17 year old daughter. The court issued primary custody to the mother almost 10 years ago, but the girl has lived with her dad for the last 5. He still pays child support to the woman, even though she only sees her daughter 1-2 times a month and doesn't provide for her basic needs. He can't afford to petition the court for a case review because the child support and legally required insurance coverage eat up any 'extra' money he might have had otherwise, and petitioning the court is rather expensive (upwards of $10k to review and revise custody). She'll graduate in May and turn 18 in August, so he'll be done paying out to the mother in a few months...but he's given her almost $500/month for the last 5 years, or almost $30k while she's not had physical custody or responsibility over the child.
 
It totally depends on the situation. My mother never used the money for my benefit. We were often homeless (lived in our care or with friends/family temporarily) and dependent on church food. Her own income and the money my dad sent via the child support system typically went to her drug habit, her hair/make-up/nails, her "clubbing" attire, or (on rare occasion) to gas for her vehicle that was only occasionally used to pick me up from school (I typically rode the bus or my bike, depending on the weather). She even had the balls to tell me once that I couldn't go live w/my dad 'cause they'd allow him to stop sending her child support checks, and she deserved that money for putting up with me.

Conversely, I have a friend who, albeit TERRIBLE at budgeting money, really does apply all of the child support she receives to the care and comfort of her children. Whether it goes to rent, food, school field trip fees, or healthcare costs...she's never used that money on herself, and she wouldn't be able to survive w/o it unless she were forced to maintain a budget w/constant supervision....and even then she'd struggle.

I always thought it was funny that my dad got saddled w/child support AND the obligation to provide health insurance. He also usually ended up being the sole provider of clothing (that didn't come from charity, anyway), school supplies, toys/entertainment (he bought me two bikes while I lived w/my mom because the one I took to Michigan got stolen and she pawned the first replacement) and basic grooming costs (occasional haircuts, toiletries, etc). His required child support was $400 a month, but he probably spent almost $1,000 in total, since he was self employed and it's expensive to insure JUST children, especially when the child lives in a different state than you do.
Excellent post, and thank you for sharing.
 
It totally depends on the situation. My mother never used the money for my benefit. We were often homeless (lived in our care or with friends/family temporarily) and dependent on church food. Her own income and the money my dad sent via the child support system typically went to her drug habit, her hair/make-up/nails, her "clubbing" attire, or (on rare occasion) to gas for her vehicle that was only occasionally used to pick me up from school (I typically rode the bus or my bike, depending on the weather). She even had the balls to tell me once that I couldn't go live w/my dad 'cause they'd allow him to stop sending her child support checks, and she deserved that money for putting up with me.

Conversely, I have a friend who, albeit TERRIBLE at budgeting money, really does apply all of the child support she receives to the care and comfort of her children. Whether it goes to rent, food, school field trip fees, or healthcare costs...she's never used that money on herself, and she wouldn't be able to survive w/o it unless she were forced to maintain a budget w/constant supervision....and even then she'd struggle.

I always thought it was funny that my dad got saddled w/child support AND the obligation to provide health insurance. He also usually ended up being the sole provider of clothing (that didn't come from charity, anyway), school supplies, toys/entertainment (he bought me two bikes while I lived w/my mom because the one I took to Michigan got stolen and she pawned the first replacement) and basic grooming costs (occasional haircuts, toiletries, etc). His required child support was $400 a month, but he probably spent almost $1,000 in total, since he was self employed and it's expensive to insure JUST children, especially when the child lives in a different state than you do.

Sorry that you went thru that. It sounds identical to some of the cases I've seen and is a prime example of why reform is needed.
 
I have never heard of the non-custodial parent receiving child support.

I mean the kid will informally be sent to live with the dad for the summer, that kind of arrangement.
 
That's because often times the parent raising the child isn't the court-appointed custodial parent in those situations.

One of my employees has a 17 year old daughter. The court issued primary custody to the mother almost 10 years ago, but the girl has lived with her dad for the last 5. He still pays child support to the woman, even though she only sees her daughter 1-2 times a month and doesn't provide for her basic needs. He can't afford to petition the court for a case review because the child support and legally required insurance coverage eat up any 'extra' money he might have had otherwise, and petitioning the court is rather expensive (upwards of $10k to review and revise custody). She'll graduate in May and turn 18 in August, so he'll be done paying out to the mother in a few months...but he's given her almost $500/month for the last 5 years, or almost $30k while she's not had physical custody or responsibility over the child.

Damn. I thought the answer to this question was pretty cut and dried...until I read this.
 
I happen to pay out child support and in my situation, both mothers are moochers. What I have a real issue with is how the system doesn't work. Let's say you apply for aid, child support isn't considered income. If you pay child support, they look at your gross and won't consider what you pay out for child support. At one point, my net pay was 9.4% of my gross income. Yes 9.4%, so I brought home $130 every 2 weeks. I went to legal aid for attorney assistance and they said I made too much money. I applied for food stamps and I was told I made too much money. My salary was 36k per year, and that is what they go off of, not your net.

Thankfully I found an attorney who let me go on a payment plan and I was able to get my support reduced to a feasible amount, and my net was still only 35% of my gross. It's not enough to live on, but $330 every two weeks is better than $220. It's too long of a story to talk about here. My whole point is, if you pay, you can't get any government help. But if you get child support, you don't have to claim it and you can get help from the government.

The system is designed to make the non-custodial parent fail. Let me also mention that my first ex won't allow me to have contact with my kids. My second ex rarely lets me see the kids.
 
Last edited:
In spite of how we like to phrase the situation, children are also not the receivers of CS. Parents/guardians are. Some parents/guardians spend the money for the kids properly, some do not.


Bing. I've known some who blow the money on themselves while their children get only the absolute minimum required to keep CPS/DSS off their backs. THOSE would be moochers, and worse.
 
Sorry that you went thru that. It sounds identical to some of the cases I've seen and is a prime example of why reform is needed.

No need to be sorry, really. I came out better for it.
 
Are people who receive child support payments "moochers"?
Receiving child support isn't the determinant of being a 'moocher'. That character flaw is defined by other characteristics.
 
Receiving child support isn't the determinant of being a 'moocher'. That character flaw is defined by other characteristics.

Child support is vested in the child... Domestic Law 101......
 
Child support is vested in the child... Domestic Law 101......
Once again, that has nothing to do with what I said. You're just a little random-comment-generator today.
 
Back
Top Bottom