2008.10.25
Who says deadbeats can't be girls? (updated)
We take a break from politics to reinforce that long-held, American tradition of parents taking care of their children -- no matter what age. What a novel concept.
On Thursday, the state Department of Social Services got their woMan. One of Virginia's "Most Wanted" deadbeat parents, a mother named Wendy Marie Gentry was arrested on charges that she owes her two adolescent boys $24,878.25 in child support.
A woman making the list is rare, state officials say. Only about 12 percent of parents without custody are women.
Gentry's ex-husband has custody of the boys, ages 13 and 11. I don't know how she lost custody, but she's paid only 16 percent of her support since 2001.
The Rockingham County factory worker has been arrested many times but gets released every time under orders to get current with her payments. That's what happened this time. She posted $20,000 bail and has a court date for next week. I'm not holding my breath that she'll show up.
She can pay now, or she can pay later.
The oldest "child" receiving support in Virginia is 61. His father is 87.
"I have to take money out of his Social Security check to send to the son," said Nick Young, head of child support enforcement in Virginia. "I'm not proud of that, but some cases have been neglected for so long."
What do you think? Is the state going too far in tapping the Social Security check of an octogenarian dad to support his sextogenarian son?
s
On Monday morning, DSS officials released with this update: Wendy Marie Gentry was rearrested over the weekend. Apparently the person who posted her initial bond thought twice about it and renegged. Gentry appeared in court Monday morning and was sentenced to 12 months in jail. She can regain her freedom in exchange for paying a $6,200 bond. The bond would be applied to her delinquent child support.--s
How very weird! No he should not be paying at his age. A woman who works at a factory, and who is that far gone in payments may not be right but neither is jailing her. I read that family court judges are the real weapons of mass distruction and from my friends I think a lot of psychologywould be benificial. Case number 1, a gal in her early 50's wth 2 ault kids and an 11 year old son, who was given to his Dad, a known alcholic, but who remarried, a school teacher. And was awarded child support: my friend struggles and is very concerned that her son will be in the car with a drinking Dad....
Second case, yet another girlfriend, said something in court, perhaps her tone was not what the judge wanted hear, and her son was awarded to her ex, again a known drinker, who again, married a school teacher! HELLO?
It is very sad, that kids are removed from their Moms which is a very un natural act, in cases where unfit does not apply.
Only thursday I was downtown and listened as a woman was explaining her natural child had been adopted and after a lot of craziness, she was getting her child back. I just smiled and told her "you go girl!" I love to hear of reunions, of Mother and child!
My 2 friends with 11 year olds are Cacusaians, the woman in the court is Afo American.
Children belong with their Moms unless she has major problems which are proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. "To know the child is to know the Mother"
Citizens Commision On Human Rights
Comment by Dona Wheeler — October 25, 2008 @ 2:35 am
He's merely being held accountable for what he should have paid when he was able. Let him go hungry like he did to his kids.
Comment by Mike — October 25, 2008 @ 2:37 am
With the money used to post bail could have been used toward the kids and not the state.
If she don't want to pay tough luck leave her in jail at least the address is known..
By all.
Comment by Terry B — October 25, 2008 @ 10:39 am
Men have and often still do, get the short end of the stick in child custody battles. How many times has the child gone to the less "fit" parent simply because she was a woman? Thankfully this trend at last seems to be changing, with judges not automatically assuming a child is better off with it's 'perhaps not as responsible, but she is it's' Mother' kind of thinking, and giving more credence to whom the better parent actually is. Additionally, not every woman out there uses the support money in the way it is intended. This blind-eye treatment, long given to men in the courtrooms was wrong, sexist and often times a detriment to the child.
Comment by Lonnie Barker — October 25, 2008 @ 11:08 am
If the old codger didn't pay his support when his son was a child, then he should pay it now. It is a hard lesson, but perhaps the old deadbeat is seeing, first hand, how his child may have had to do without becuase he did not pay when he should have. There are more deadbeat Mom's now, simply because judges are finally wise to the fact that just because someone gave birth does not make them a nurturing mother. There are too many women who have custody of their children because a judge, in their mystical logic decided that the child should be with their mother. Child Support Enforcement is, at best, a poorly managed, government funded, monster, that is in need of a complete overhaul. They go to court unprepared, and almost ALL the information they obtain on the non-custodial parent has to be provided by the custodial parent. Even then, they still cannot get it right. In one particular recent case, the non-custodial parent failed to show up for a court hearing. This person knew the date and time of the court date, yet because the summons was posted on their front door, rather than put in their hand, they got off with only a new court date. This was after many, many years of absolutely no action on the part of child support enforcemnt. It took communication with an elected state official to get them off their duffs and use the info provided by the custodial parent to locate this dead-beat. They had been provided with this person's home address, phone number, and where they were working, and the fact that they were using a "fake" social security number. By the time DCSE contacted the employer, they had long gone to yet another job. So, if, and when DCSE uses the tools provided them, the problem of many deadbeat parents would be resolved in a timely manner. If they refuse to pay, then they deserve to be in jail.
Comment by Donna Gibson — October 25, 2008 @ 12:47 pm
I have fought the child support battle for many years. He does not pay and gets off scott free because the courts will not lock him up and keep him there. I believe if a man does not have anything to do with his child and does not pay child support, he needs another consequence! I would rather him be sitting in a jail cell thinking about how he has messed up then running the streets making more babies that he will not take care of!
Comment by Dana — October 25, 2008 @ 7:03 pm
If "child support" were abolished, the divorce rate would go down 90%. It's a "cottage industry", and also used for punitive damages in most cases, not the support of the child. The recipients of the payments have to answer for absolutely nothing as to how it's spent.
I have empirical knowledge of one case where a man didn't get his cancelled checks back that he had sent for "support" for 6 months. And when he did finally get them, they had all be saved up and cashed at the Roanoke Harley-Davidson motorcycle store. He went to the store, found out all he could, and it turned out the ex-wife and her new live-in boyfriend had used the "child support" checks to buy a new Harley. And there was absolutely NOTHING he or anyone else could do about it. He filed for a reduction in "child support" and took all the documents to court. He ended up being fined $100 for "contempt" when he tried to explain things. The "child support" was not reduced.
I also personally know of another case where the "chld support enforcement officer" began a lesbian relationship with the ex-wife, they hounded the ex-husband until he committed suicide.
Common sense tells you a man should support his children, but the ex-wife (or ex-husband) should NOT be able to use it as a venue for private punishment.
"Child support" and capital punishment have a lot in common. They are both worthless in VA at the present time because of the way they are both administered and abused. And once either one is done, it can't be reversed.
Comment by Percy Kution — October 25, 2008 @ 8:21 pm
Percy:
Your point is valid about the misuse of the funds, my friend. But I have to disagree that abolishing support would reduce the divorce rate. I believe a better solution in those abusive cases to which you refer might be to work within the system to determine whether the children might be better off in the custody of the supporting parent. Just my opinion.
Comment by Mike — October 26, 2008 @ 12:29 pm
And then there are the men who faithfully pay their support while the "Mother" plays games with his visitations all while telling the "child" that the father is a POS and does nothing. The courts still do not uphold the laws that forbid the custodial parent from alienating the children from the non-custodial parent by trash-talking, influential, damaging words. We still have a long way to go at our children's emotional expenses.
Comment by Jody — October 27, 2008 @ 6:45 am
I feel when a parent provides for a child that belongs to him by buying clothes and giving money to help with their lodging, this should be counted as child support.
So often there are other children in the family that have other fathers and those fathers do not pay and the child support that is provided by the one father does not go for his child or children. If one father or mother has to pay, then all should. Otherwise, I feel the mother or father should have to show receipts where the money was spent on the right child from the right parent. One father should not have to pay for another mans child or children.
Comment by Donna Adcock — October 27, 2008 @ 9:03 am
I wonder why they haven't just taken it out of her pay...it states she has a job. Take the money from her before she gets it and send it to the kids.
Comment by Brandi — October 27, 2008 @ 11:03 am
It's nice to know that someone is paying attention to the deadbeat parents of the world because I know a few who have no relationship with their children and pay nothing! However, the sad reality is that this woman may never pay what she owes. And what's worse is that these kids need and deserve to have a good mother more than the money anyway.
Comment by Lo — October 27, 2008 @ 11:10 am
I know first hand how bad the DCSE ( Division of Child Support Enforcement)is. They are for the money for them selves first then the child. I agree that our children need support from the absent parent, and if DCSE is involved or the courts, doing a wage with holding order is much better than than putting someone in jail who has a job. However, DCSE lies to everybody, especially the ones who have more than one child case.This needs to be fixed NOW so that future issues can be resolved early on and our children do not have to be left out.
Comment by RC — October 27, 2008 @ 12:48 pm
There is a major overhaul needed of the whole system. People who get child support need to be accountable and make sure it goes for the good of the child. The people who owe child support should be forced to pay it. Everybody needs to come together for the child's sake and make sure that whatever is best for the child is done. The children need to stop being used as game pieces to get back and one another.
No matter if you are the mother or the father, if you have a child and you owe child support...get a job and pay it. If you have been wronged etc got to court...go about it the legal way and get it straightened out. Our children deserve better.
Comment by Shannon — October 27, 2008 @ 2:30 pm
Doing a wage withholding order is great, but only if the noncustodial parent keeps a job. Many of them quit a job as soon as they take child support from their check. And they have to leave the NCP "living expenses". After all that, spreading what is left over 4-6 children, there is not much left. Either they pay up or get locked up!!! DCSE has not helped me much at all!!! Our children absolutely deserve better!!!
Comment by Dana — October 29, 2008 @ 8:16 am
Not all people who have back child support are bad people, dead beats or people that don't care about supporting their kids. I know many people who have more child support than they could ever afford, especially if they have more than one kid and had a well-paying job in the past. The state is allowed to take up to 60% of a person's income and for many people that don't have great jobs and are already living paycheck to paycheck, paying that sort of child support means they lose their apartment, car, have no food, etc. It is important to take care of your children, but if you aren't able to pay your rent or car payment you're never going to be able to do anything with your life or help out your child. In this aspect, I understand how many people get behind. It's an endless cycle and many people end up living in complete poverty for 18 years to avoid going to jail for unpaid support.
Also, the interest system on child support is rediculous.
Comment by Allison — October 29, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
They had used the "child support" checks to buy a new Harley?
I see nothing wrong with that...
as long as the kid was being taken care of.
No diff. in that and them setting aside $x / month for the bike and cashing the checks on time.
Comment by Jesse — October 30, 2008 @ 12:51 am
Jesse: You "see nothing wrong" with using child support checks to buy a Harley? You, sir, are the poster child for why VA has a helmet law. You've obviously had a serious head injury by not wearing yours.
Comment by Percy Kution — October 31, 2008 @ 11:01 am
Jesse
It's obvious you got the motorcycle. The money is meant for the well being of the child not for personal pleasure.
Now another bill has been created and the child will get less because an irresponsible parent seen fit to purchase a luxury item.
Tell me can the child eat the motorcycle? Can the child ride the motorcycle to school? Will the Motorcycle enhance the child's ability to learn,
outside of the fact the mother put some "Derelict" before the child needs, people whom think and act like you.....
need to get their priority's in check.
Comment by Backlash — October 31, 2008 @ 11:08 pm
Percy:
You ran me over with that last one. I'm still laughing. Good one.
Comment by Mike — November 1, 2008 @ 1:09 am