Child Support
Christine said:
I was just going to bring up the issue of child support payments.
Perhaps if the government won’t be responsible for supporting the parents
we should charge the bio parents child support payments.*obviously, this is not a serious suggestion. Just frustrated that one
set of children is worthy of receiving financial support while another
group is not.
Actually, some (many? all? I couldn’t find anything that specified) states DO require parents to pay child support to the state while their kids are in foster care. Here’s a link from Colorado’s site.
Foster parents: what is the policy in your state? Do bioparents have to pay child support when their children are placed in care?
Of course, this money is not paid to the foster parents. (Man, that would be awkward) But I guess it goes into the “pot” of money that is used to support out of home care.
I do know that failure to pay the required child support while your children are in care is looked upon quite poorly. Judges figure that if a parent can not pay this fee while all other expenses for their children are taken care of, then they are not going to be able to support their child if they are returned. I know that exceptions can be made, but if the bioparents are paying for things like cell phones and vacations, but not paying child support, then it will definitely be taken into consideration.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:12 am
The parents are supposed to pay while their child/ren is/are in care in Texas, but from the group of people I know IRL, I’ve never heard of it happening. Huck’s mom and dad didn’t, I know.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:13 am
If foster families had to rely on biological families for their support payments, I am sure they would NEVER get paid. If that were the case, we certainly wouldn’t be paid, as the county still hasn’t found our child’s biological family. In our state, biological families are charged child support, but many don’t pay because they simply don’t have the money, or aren’t able to prioritize their budgets accordingly. Poverty, drug abuse and domestic problems seem to go hand in hand.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:14 am
I don’t know about other states, but I do know from my experience in Colorado that it sure pisses off many of the parents to learn that not only are their children being removed from the home, but they are also expected to pay the state to do it. Not saying that they shouldn’t have to pay, just that from the parents’ point of view it’s like adding insult to injury. Unfortunately, I don’t know too much about how the system of charging them works. For instance, I’d like to know whether the adjudication of the case plays a factor. If it’s determined to be “unfounded” do the parents still have to pay? Also, I’d be interested to know if it affects the parents’ credit ratings if they don’t pay or get behind on payments.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:18 am
First, the Rebecca’s comment. I really doubt most of these people care about their credit ratings.
Also, there is one county that I dealt with that required parents to pay support, but 50% of it went into an account that would be returned with the child for the child’s needs.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:36 am
In GA they are supposed to pay child support but the state doesn’t go after it. My children have been in care on and off (only home for a matter of weeks before returning to care) for over 6 years and their parents were only told about paying when they filed an appeal to TPR. They went to court to see how much and decided to drop the appeal when they were informed it would be $1000 a month for 6 children.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:43 am
Rebecca…I am under the impression that they do not request any money until adjudication. I have no idea what happens if they get behind..maybe a tax lien? I also do not know what happens if there is a TPR..I get the impression that they don’t go after the back money.
I also think a lot of times it does occur like Rachel said. They go after it as a bargaining tool..right or wrong..I think that is what is used sometimes.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:21 am
As a CASA worker, I know that in Texas the bio parents are required to pay child support until or unless parental rights are terminated.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:42 am
In my experience- in TX parents are suppose to pay- but they rarely get in “trouble” for not paying. My current foster child’s parent was suppose to be paying- but wasn’t- then they took it off her shoulders because she said she couldn’t afford it- then they got mad at her for not doing what she was suppose to do with the money she wasn’t paying to them so they added it back to her plan. I still doubt she is paying it. $50 a month.
October 9th, 2007 at 11:19 am
Hmm, this is very interesting. I didn’t really think about it, but yes, it does make sense that a parent should be paying for child support. It does seem funny they would see it as “insult on top of injury” as after all, if I leave my kid with a babysitter to have a day off (and they definitely have the day off from child care), I have to pay someone. If your furniture is seized because you don’t pay your rent, and put into storage (which the law requires), you still have to pay for the storage to get it back once you are back on track for paying your rent. Like a non-custodial parent, the child is still your child, and why would you not want to pay money for the needs of your child? Why should your child go without as they are not with you? Why don’t people think about their kids’ care, which is what the money is for, instead of “the money is going to the other parent/the state/the foster family”?? Would they rather that the other kids in the home get clothes, lunch, toys, and not their child? Weird. Anyways, very interesting topic that I never thought about.
October 9th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Our parents have to pay child support, and honestly, I don’t think they should. They didn’t choose to put the kids into care, and my kids mother struggles to eat, part of the reason the kids were taken. If the state paid her what they pay me a lot of the issues, Heck, all the issues that landed the kids in care might have gone away.
October 9th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
I’ve heard of this before, but only in terms of parents who are wishing to make a *voluntary* committment of their child to foster care. I never realized it applied to parents who involuntarily had their children removed. In fact, I know parents who wish their children could be placed out of the home but they can’t afford the foster care payments they have been told they would have to make (far more than foster parents actually receive). Instead, they’ve had to wait for the children to behave so badly they are taken by the state or are in juvenile deliquency.
October 9th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Cluttergirl–Speaking as though I were a parent who’s children had just been removed: Why should I pay for those things if my child is removed from my home? I have clothing, housing, transportation, food, toys, etc., already in my house. I’m not going to pay for someone else to provide these for my kid.
October 9th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Me again! Sorry, but this is just really getting to me. I know other parents in my situation have had children removed from their home due to false allegations. Taking my child, then adding insult to injury and requiring me to pay for their care which ends up being unneccesary. Wow! Plus I’m paying for legal counsel, travel to see the kid, lost work, etc.
And as others have said, this could be a drastic financial burden to families who are already struggling.
October 9th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
As far as I know (and if someone can find something that says differently, let me know) these payments only come about after the adjudication.
Which means, the case has already been heard by a judge, witnesses called, etc and the parent..let me see how it is worded in my foster care handbook..”if the parents have committed acts alleged in the petition which allow the court to take juridiction over the child”
For Bubba and Snowbaby, this happened about six weeks after they came into care. DFS presented their case and the judge had to decide whether BioMom had done what they said she did.
Again, I think it is a case by case thing in most states. First the case has to be adjudicated.
I don’t know..I am torn. If BioMom refuses to get a job, shouldn’t the state hold her accountable for some of the costs of her children? Who is going to provide those things for her kids then? (clothing, toys, food etc?) If she won’t do it (and I mean WON’T..she has the ability to work but won’t) then what?
October 9th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
If she can and won’t, then that is reason to terminate. I don’t see how child support changes that.
In my former life I supervised some visits between the bio mom and foster children. She was required to provide the food, diapers, etc for the visit. She was homeless and I remember thinking back then how inappropriate it was. She would bring a cup she just purchased, the least expensive formula…it was just so weird. I understand the point the state was trying to make, but visiting with the kids was the point. Things that the primary care giver should have sent along, clothing, diapers, regular formula, bottles, snacks…those things should not have been forced upon Mom who was struggling so hard, and I don’t think it was good for the children either.
October 9th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Re the stuff for the visits…I think there are two types of neglect. One is when the parent is truly trying to make things better but can’t and the child is neglected as a result. The second is when Mom has the ability to NOT neglect the kids, but she doesn’t do what it takes. If mom is neglectful because of health issues or because she doesn’t have a high enough paying job, then these things should be dealt with by providing the family services. But if Mom won’t do what it takes because she doesn’t want to, then I can see where requiring her to bring things to the visits makes sense. It is another way to get her to start taking responsibility for the children. If she doesn’t have the ability to care for them during a supervised visit, then she doesn’t have the ability to care for them when they go home. Then again, I don’t ever want to see poverty as a reason why rights are terminated, but when the poverty is brought on by choices that the parent makes…
That all being said, the little kid’s biomom is required to bring a diaper bag to the visits as part of her written service plan. However, I also have to bring one.
October 9th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Stacy, you’re probably right that most of the people going through crises involving DSS, money, and possibly substance abuse, credit scores aren’t their top priority. However as someone who worked with poor women to deal with their financial issues, I know that credit ratings will catch up with them later if/when they start to put their lives back together. Then again, a lot of people in their situation will already have bad credit because of bad decisions, medical debt, jail stays (in Colorado they can charge you by the day) and other issues…
October 9th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
I don’t know how it works with bio-parents, but in Oregon Slugger’s first adoptive parents were required to pay support after they disrupted.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Wow, my comment inspired a post, I’m flattered! Actually when I wrote this I had no idea that bio parents were required/asked to pay child support while their children were in care.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Just a question to AnnMarie… if she has clothing, food, toys in her house for her children, why were they removed? Here they have to show to a judge within 24 hours that the child is in actual danger in order to remove the child for longer than 24 hours. I suppose there may be false allegations out there, but the system is normally so overloaded that there are many many more cases of child neglect and abuse being reported and not acted on (or inadequately investigated and the children returned to dangerous home situations) than there are children being removed excessively for bogus reasons.