Talk:Child support

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archived[edit]

All Talk Page discussion through 10/25/07 10/28/07 11/27/2007 has been archived to the link to the right. No discussion threads or posts have been deleted, they have simply been moved, because at last check this page was 81kb long and becoming somewhat unwieldy. DanielEng 18:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, my law firm has begun legal forum website. With the intention of encouraging discussion related to family law issues such as child support. Please feel free to use the site to further discuss these issues. The main page to the website is [1] and the legal forum webpage is [2] --AttorneyChrisOakley (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I noticed your new section in the article. The information is good, but belongs in the separate article about Child Support in the United States, which is linked in the body of the article. US-specific information/sections doesn't have a place here because this article presents a global view of the issue. Thanks. DanielEng (talk) 07:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

non NPOV statement?[edit]

This doesn't seem right in section 4.1 it says "The Collections Act, which basically gives the entire system an open door to commit fraud, and extort money from a large portion of the population while collecting interest in the process."

Is this vandalism? RichardFry (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Aspects of a broken system" section - possible NPOV[edit]

There's good information in the section, but it reads as though the contributor is an opponent of child support as it stands. I've flagged the section for WP:NPOV. --Alan (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made an attempt to push the article in question "Aspects of a broken system", more into neutrality. Would like to modify it more without losing the important information to the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadapathy (talk • contribs) 20:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC) The true meaning of 'Child Support' is to 'assist or aid a child' and not to ‘give someone monies’!!!!!!! Child support is not payments. Payments is a form of child support, but child support actually has over 14 main qualifications: Such as 1) Protection of the Child; 2) Education of the Child; 3) Certain Freedoms (a) freedom to play, (b)freedom to answer honestly,(c)freedom to hope, etc. 4) Healthy food for the Child to consume; 5)Proper Clothing of the Child; 5) Access to Health Care for the child; 6) To Love and be Love of that Child; 7) To Adjust, Adapt and to Grow unabated mentally and physically; 8) To Defend its Life and the Life of Others from persons immediately trying to take it illegally and unlawfully as acts of Malice; and their are more. Parents are by International Laws the founding superior parents upon the consummation of any child and their rights can only be passed on by their will or by Law as to the Custody of their children to any one else. The Laws has certain impediments within them to secure the protection of children and their rights. These impediments as well make it clear that child support is not payments alone. If you want check almost every law internationally and you will see sections of those Acts of those Laws that state "before any order for payment can be made the payer (discriminatingly usually the father)must be proved to have had and have access to the child": There are also laws emplaced to secure that where any child (not child stealing) has been restrained from any parent, having been given custody by law or having by any law or agreement or legal structure the superior responsibility for the child, or upon birth of that child has equal superior rights to that child, where anyone including each parent so deprives any other parent of their right to equal and legal or lawful rights to that child,(where the parent being deprived has not broken any law to afford such that relates to any child abuse of any child regardless of if the act was on another child), does so illegally and unlawfully by depriving that parent of property where depriving any person of property "Property includes rights as well as rights to ownership, possession, or to have power over", where such deprivation is an act of theft. As well for any person to restrain any child where that child or its parent has not committed any such crime to award such and not falling under a public emergency, that person so depriving that child of his right illegally and unlawfully has also committed an act of child abuse. As well for removing that child from its parent to a mass effect has done an act preparatory to war which is an act of treason. As well for removing that child from any parent, including the father or any person having legal lawful custody to act as custodian and guardian where the laws are being broken by any judge, Justice, or Magistrate so doing has committed several acts of treason; (i) by breaking the law committing crime bringing bad light on the crown (ii) by swearing to uphold the law and then refusing which is to perjure an oath; (iii)By receiving monies for a job under any judicial system as an act of fraud and theft to deceive persons that they are doing something or will be doing something to which they are not doing; (iv)by committing an act in a public place to cause the public to be incited to rebellion, incited to violence, incited to hatred for the Crown because of the crimes being committed by the judicial system, which make the judicial system a fraudulent synopsis, whereby it is really the injustice system. The Child then is usually and mainly the entity of Legal Lawful discrimination not parents nor any other person save a foreign diplomat who alone has a higher standard of protection as to legal lawful discrimination as long as any act against any child by the foreign diplomat is an act preparatory to war or an act of war by offending the mass of children or doing any act that would cause incitement of the general populous of any country. The child then has its well-being paramount above every other persons (saving a foreign diplomat) under most all laws in almost every country even though scattered throughout the law books of that country (sometimes it takes a long search to find the sections that make that clear as the sections is not always direct but states so passingly as it may relate to something else criminal). It is then an act of child stealing, racketeering, and child trafficking, blackmail and corruption to make or cause any parent or any child to lose their rights to each other because of pursuing any monies, or any types of payments where such any act imposes on that child's freedom to see or interact with their parent as is their lawfully undeterred right to their parent and that parent (including the father) to their child lawfully undeterred. The first order of any Child Support or matter of consideration is always or almost always to; 1) Prove that the child is the parent's child or legal and lawful ward; 2) Prove that the child is not being abused; 3) Have dealt with and prosecuted any person found abusing the child; 4) See that the child is in an ideal and safe environment, (e.g. a rat in a house is unsuitable but does not place the child in an un-ideal situation as long as the rat has been living there for more that 4 weeks undeterred) an unsuitable accommodation is then one that is not progressive to the child's safety at an immediate rate; 5) Have a mental report of all persons seeking custody and as well the child; 6) Have a physical report of all persons seeking custody, and as well the child; 7) See that the child is placed with the adequate parent having superior custody; 8) Have a report of all places where the child will be staying; 9) Have a report of all persons seeking custody or payments financial reports including the child's; 10)Place the child in the care of the person who totaling the all these most of these mentioned 1) to 7) favorably, where both parents equally qualify then the child shall be left in the care of the mother for the time of pregnancy and till 3 months after where the proven father can be allowed to visit or provide things for the mother good food to consume for the child (even in pregnancy) and after delivered of the child the father shall be allowed to visit the child at a laid out and adequate time agreeable to the mother but not too restrictive to the father. Then after three months both father and mother shall be given equal time with the child, where one can visit the child for 3 to four months whilst in custody of the other parent and then may it will change after the 3 to 4 month period that the parent previously visiting can now have the custody of the child whilst the other visits. On every indecision of any parent the Laws against crime shall be first in that decision, and then the protection of that child and his/her (child's) rights; 11) After all this an order for payment can only be to the person having the child. Both parents have equal right to pay monies; Both parents have the equal right to care for their child; The well-being of the child is held paramount; This is 'Child Support' to a major fraction and with regards to the rights of every individual by almost every International Laws An order for money is just that, an order for monies and does not constitute child support where all other factions mentioned above have not been dealt with first, and is just an order for one person to give another person monies and is illegal and unlawful as a pretense for what it is not, it is not child support, it is an act of theft.[reply]

Where any person fraudulently or unlawfully and illegally made to pay monies are not compensated and reimbursed is a contravention of almost every law and every Constitution world wide as it is an act to support theft and to incite persons to commit crime. Keith St. Clair Nicholas of Barbados. Our country is currently over run by socialite criminals who work mainly within the Judicial System and under the Crown as Magistrates, Judges, Justices, Police officers, Prison officers, Directors, etc. I currently am fighting for to be able to spend time with my son since I have never had any custody of my son and even though the Laws of Barbados and the Constitution of Barbados protect against such a heinous crime against its people and against children, it is rumored that persons of occult or witchcraft or secret societies who are connected with the Crown are taking orders and giving orders that children be separated from their children against the Laws of Barbados and its Constitution. It is amazing because I have currently been in Lower Court/Magistrates Court, High Court/Superior Court, Criminal Court, Family Court, Civil Court, Constantly for over two years and in every case every Magistrate, Justice, and Judge including a Prosecutor and an Attorney-at-Law and being forced to study the Laws of Barbados and the Constitution of Barbados ardently for two years, found constantly many sections of the Acts of the Laws of Barbados and the Constitution of Barbados that these person were committing crimes as a constant repetitive undeterring rate, and many time committing crimes that made persons who didn't know the Laws of Barbados even aware that these persons were committing crimes. I have made requests to the British High Commissioner, the Prime Minister Fruendel Stuart, other Ministers, the Ombudsman, the Governor-General, that these are all acts of Treason (acts that constitute acts of war and acts that could cause persons to want to assassinate the Queen of England as our Head of state and who is solely responsible for the Crown. I admitted I have a passionate love for King James who ordered the putting together of the Old King James Bible and I have been trying to warn the Queen of England by way of her representatives, yet nothing. It has stretched that almost every person in Barbados has themselves or a family member been tortured (illegal), raped, starved, beaten, assaulted, robbed, blackmailed, threatened, incarcerated illegally and unlawfully (where the presiding Magistrates, Judges, and Justices knew the person was innocent). These are making persons state that their is no justice in Barbados whilst the presiding and those practicing law state that it is the Law where sections are provided to prove that these Magistrates, Justices, and Judges, as well as those working under the Crown are lying. Barbados' socialism has gone so far that the judges who are to report the attorneys-at-law and the attorneys-at-law who are to report the Magistrates, Judges, and Justices, all for committing crimes and breaking very many sections of the Acts of the Laws of Barbados are in fact committing openly seen acts to protect each other from prosecution. The police force and the prison officers have to investigate themselves of their own crimes or their word is taken for it by other persons who know or relate to their crimes and who will not carry out a proper investigation. Currently many people are being imprisoned where the laws of Barbados and the Constitution of Barbados states clearly that these persons cannot be imprisoned. Their is no justice and the Magistrates are presiding over matters that where compensation is to be given exceeds their jurisdiction to try that matter on the grounds that they cannot effect a true judgment. We need help and we are crying out for help. This country has a front, but children's rights and men are being discriminated against and are being abused openly. I state and testify that this is the true case and no lies are hearing. I also make this known that someone can get us help. The British High Commissioner here is done nothing and neither has any of the Governor generals from Sir Clifford Husband and after to stop these crimes committed by persons sworn under the Crown. I wanted to just start killing these criminals when I saw the state of abuse my son was in and how these people in the Crown would not help me protect my son from his criminal mother but they actually warned me to leave the mother and my child alone. My child has nearly died several time and suffered abuse so much that sometimes he walked like his mind was somewhere else like a zombied, sometimes he could stand up. He is only 3 now but the time of his abuse started when he was 1 year old to my witness. I have been crying out for help to save my son for 2 years in the courts of Barbados in front of the Crown and do you believe they neither assisted me nor my son but aided the woman in committing crime by ignoring my pleas to help us. Currently I have found sections that prove every one of those Magistrates, Justices, and Judges I have seen acted against the Laws of Barbados. They were committing crimes in court in broad daylight in front of many people, no one does anything in this small country as people know one another in this criminal arena. I have had a Justice and a director 'warn me' against placing persons who are committing crimes where those persons complained for were working for the Crown, in front of Tribunals, or disciplinary committees. This country is gone to the dogs!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.51.68.232 (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gender Bias[edit]

This article seems to imply bias when saying that the father typically loses in court, but it doesn't elaborate. "and finally to the parent who loses in court (typically the father)" I've spoken with someone that works in the industry, and he told me a similar account of this bias. In his department, none of the females ordered to pay child support ever payed up, because it wasn't enforced or processed by his female supervisors. The term "Dead Beat Dad" also suggests that the industry is slanted. Nearly every person I know that pays child support has similar concerns about gender bias against the father in Child Custody and Support. I think a section touching on these issues would be a useful addition to this article, perhaps in a better organized "Criticism" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.194.233 (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes i agree — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.28.114 (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.89.197.167 (talk) 03:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unpaid Child Support/Contempt Court/incarceration[edit]

In United State, the parent may be incarcerated for unpaid child support and alternative death penalty for cancer patient may be processed in order to get money from non custodial parent.

The question is why the custodial parent should have sole custody if he/she has no financial ability to take care of the child? How can non custodial parent makes money to pay child support when he/she is incarcerated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawlessfactless (talk • contribs) 10:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

500 billion number[edit]

The $500 billion number sounds absurd, and probably is. The source (79) looks terrible, and the number doesn't appear anywhere on there anyway! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.202.209 (talk) 05:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Dead-beat" term[edit]

Under "Compliance and enforcement issues" the first paragraph states that "While "dead-beat" is a pejorative used by some in the media and some child support advocacy groups, it is not the legal term used to describe such parents." In the very next paragraph it refers to the "Federal Deadbeat Punishment Act". This seems to be directly contradictory. 206.248.156.92 (talk) 10:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Slavery" as a related article[edit]

Under "See also", Slavery is listed. It is not even tangentially referenced in the article however, and including Slavery under "See also" seems to editorialize the article a bit, appealing to the common rhetoric that child support "enslaves" men.

50.121.122.90 (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't belong. I have removed it. Deli nk (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Child support. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Child support. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Child support. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

for whose benefit?[edit]

I think the opening sentence is misleading where it says "for the financial benefit of a child". Later on, the article does explain "courts have vehemently opposed any attempt by "Non Custodial" parents to ensure "Child Support" is actually used for the child." The fact is that the law does not require the money to be spent for the financial benefit of a child, in the USA. I don't know about other countries. This point should be in the opening paragraph somewhere, and explained better later also. Roger (talk) 20:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it should not. The fact that a parent does not have to account for child support does not mean that the custodial parent is not expending resources on behalf of the child. It simply means that they cannot be compelled to provide an accounting. Very obviously, and by definition, a custodial parent expends money to support a child.Arllaw (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not just that the custodial parent does not have to provide an accounting. The custodial parent has to support the child, but does not have to spend any child support money on the child. If you doubt this, I will look for a citation. Roger (talk) 22:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are making a political argument, and for that matter a semantic argument as opposed to a substantive one. Money is fungible, so it doesn't make a lick of difference whether the child support payment is said to be used for the support of the child, or as reimbursement for the payor's share of expenditures that the custodial parent has already incurred.Arllaw (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not expressing any political opinion at all. I am just describing how the system works. The money does not have to be either used for support of the child or for reimbursement. You occasionally hear of a movie star paying $20k per month in child support, even tho much less gets spent on the child. There are arguments both for and against doing it that way, but I have not mentioned them. Roger (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If that were the case, you would be content with the explanation already in the article rather than trying to politicize the article by pushing a highly misleading argument made by child support opponents into the opening paragraph. If something theoretically could happen in one case in a million, it does not belong in the introductory paragraph as if its' the norm. If you want to make that sort of argument, go to the "criticism" subsection and support it with proper references.Arllaw (talk) 12:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not criticism. It is how it works. Some people like it that way, and some people don't. I was not proposing to include any of those arguments. The opening paragraph does mention some odd possibilities, such as paying a non-parent guardian. It is just wrong to say that the money is for the child when there is no such requirement. And yes, it is the norm that the money is not required to be spent on the child. Only in exceptional cases, in the USA, is there a requirement to spend the money on the child. I am not content with the explanation in the article because the opening paragraph is misleading. Roger (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You need to refrain from politicizing this article, you need to properly support your claims, and you should refrain from putting false statements in the notes from your edits. Arllaw (talk) 13:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What is political? I have not put any political opinions in the article. Perhaps some political arguments for the system would help, but I did not insert them. Are you disputing the correctness of my edits? Do you have a political objection, or a factual objection? Roger (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Besides correcting some wrong text in the article, I am trying to address a common question people have about child support. Those who pay often want to know where the money goes. Those who receive it often wonder if there are legal restrictions on how they spend the money. They might come to this article looking for an answer. The article should have some explanation that is not misleading. Roger (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by Arllaw make several unsupported claims. The source does not say anything about unusual circumstances, or "no need to require accountings", or whether child support payments are sufficient to cover the costs. It makes comparisons to what parents spend, in some scenarios, but that's about all. Roger (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accountings are your issue, not mine. If you believe that the sources are inadequate, I'm sure you know how to search for additional sources and add them.Arllaw (talk) 02:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to state the simple fact that accountings are not required, and neither is spending money on the child. You say "most jurisdictions find no basis to require accountings", but I don't think that is right. They don't require accountings, but you are trying to make a stronger statement, as if to imply that there is no reason for accountings. There are arguments for and against accountings. You also say "child support payments are almost never sufficient to cover that full cost". Again, this is false, and not supported by your sources. I see you added a 1983 women's law advocacy article, but it talks mostly about child support systems that no longer exist. And no, I cannot find additional sources for your false statements. Roger (talk) 05:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You keep making this more and more personal, which is not necessary. The statement you misrepresent in your missive is "Barring unusual circumstances, most jurisdictions find no basis to require accountings on the request of a child support payor". That is true, despite decades of lobbying by anti-child support groups to convince courts and legislatures of the opposite. As you know, only ten U.S. jurisdictions allow for accountings under any circumstances. Whatever your sympathies for the arguments of those anti-child support factions, the facts are what they are. Arguments rejected decades ago remain rejected.Arllaw (talk) 12:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the one making this personal. I have not expressed any opinion on whether there should be accountings or the positions of anti-child support factions. As I say, there are arguments for both sides. Please don't say that critics have no basis unless you are going to name those critics and demonstrate that they have no basis. Also you say "almost never sufficient", but that is not true and you have no source for that. Roger (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is this your M.O.? Insult, make false statements in editor comments, browbeat and complain until others just give up? You obviously don't think that there are arguments on both sides, as you keep trying to delete the facts that run counter to your opinions.Arllaw (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article was a mess not long ago. To me, the editorial bias pushed by Schalfly and his comments and conduct here come across as an effort to push the soft of anti-child support bias back into the article that was so recently cleaned out.207.229.135.146 (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(ignoring ad hominem attacks) If I have said anything false, please explain the error, with sources. Roger (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Child support. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 30 external links on Child support. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Child support. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Child support. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

US States Profiting from Social Security Title IV Child Support Collections[edit]

[3]https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/child-support/who-we-are/title-iv-d-and-child-support-texas

Has this statement that the state has a monetary benefit, from federal government payments to the state, from collecting child support money.

"The Social Security Act of 1975 contains Title IV-D—a federal law that, in part, requires every state to manage a child support enforcement program. To help fund these programs, the federal government provides money to each state. These funds help cover the operational costs involved in child support enforcement—including establishing orders, enforcement efforts and tracking and reporting."

This page needs additional RS about how this incentivizes the state government to award the maximum amount of child support as well as collect the most child support it can. Also, how this maximizing the amount of awarded child support can lower the percentage of time the higher earning parent has custody of the child. 2600:1700:D591:5F10:5D68:32BA:2E:C815 (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Social Security Act of 1975 was signed into law by President Gerald Ford. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:5D68:32BA:2E:C815 (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Child_support&oldid=1218482424"