They don't. The non-custodial parent pays child support to the custodial parent, which can be either male or female.

But a process which enforces a debt against you by jailing you, voiding your driver's license, etc., thus destroying your ability to pay, and keeps doing that, thus ensuring that you'll never be able to pay, is Kafkaesque in its perversity. Throw in lack of counsel at trial, and you've got a completely broken system.

It reminds me of the endless cycle that people can fall into from municipal violations, which John Oliver exposed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UjpmT5noto

Nine times out of ten, the custodial parent is the mother.

Wife 1.0 took off on me when my kids were wee babies and she signed up for state welfare using the kids to get more money. I got a bill from the state for it and the children were in my custody the whole time. When I informed them of that fact, they hauled her into court and didn't do a damn thing to her.:-?

About 30 years ago, one of my troops was going through a nasty divorce. The court awarded the wife $1,600 per month in child support against my guy.

He told the judge that it does not cost $1,600 to support him, his wife, and their child every month. Furthermore how can the court decide that it costs $3,200 per month to raise a child as child support is supposed to be half.

The judge told him to be quiet or he would hold him in contempt.

So my troop who was bringing home about $2,000 per month had to pay $1,600. He had to default on his other bills and was administratively moved back in to the barracks for failure to pay his bills with the expected result to his career.

The wife? Openly shacking up with the guy she cheated with. No intention of marrying (and ending the child support) and taking expensive vacations.

When my troop asked the court to verify that his child support was being spent on the children, he was told no. There is no responsibility (in Nebraska) for the mother to account for any of the money given to her for child support.

A fair and just system indeed.

Man dies from spinal injury received while in police custody in Baltimore
 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...pm_local_pop_b

None of the officers say they used force in arresting him. Yet video apparently shows him limp being put into a van. When he came out, he couldn't breathe.

Obviously this must have been a preexisting condition - his spine must have been ready to snap at any moment - and the cops bear no responsibility. Or at least that's what the DA will say when he declines to prosecute.

Another example of cover your own...

Police policing themselves...
 

Is like hiring an alcoholic to guard a liquor store.:nope::-?

Didn't George Patton die of the same injury?

The state will always find a way to put the cost on a responsible party over the irresponsible one. Like 100's of times I've fired employees over the years, not showing up for weeks, drugs, numerous issues, if I went to the hearing to deny them unemployment, 90% of the time they still got it regardless of what they did to be terminated...

My first divorce, wife cheating, still got damn near everything, probably because she had existing children living with her before me....

Would you take a police officers boot in the nads for $650 grand?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/04/22...ties-on-video/

Pass,

Whether justified or not, police brutality is still brutality.

It is not for any officer of the law to become judge, jury and executioner.
Those who think they have that right are wrong and should be just as accountable for their actions as Joe citizen/criminal.

Breaking the law to enforce the law is counter productive.

Totally agree. Still, over half a million bucks is a lot of money.

I would

I'm rather fond of my nads, not to mention my allergy to excruciating pain.:yep:

Besides the fact that a few shots to the nads can and will kill you.

Being a custodial Dad, I can tell you that it is a hard battle to win when it comes to custody. Child support? Pfft, don't make me laugh. My son's mother was required to pay $50 bucks a month 8 years ago. The amount was set because she wasn't working. She has had a few jobs since then, but as soon as the enforcement people find out, she "loses" the job. I have seen less than $1000 total in 8 years. She is supposed to pay half of medical too - nothing on that score. Not to mention I foot the whole bill for insurance too. Oh - and for her visits - I have to provide half the transportation.

Its a totally unfair system - and what is sad is that it doesn't really short change me - but it sure does shortchange the child. My son had an early college trip to Europe he wanted to take. She wouldn't give up a few days in the summer so he could go. Never mind paying part of the over $5k cost....

The audio that's surfaced in the Walter Scott has a supervisor in his department telling him that he'll be interviewed "in a few days."

Excuse me? SOP for a cop who kills someone is that he doesn't have to explain himself for a few days?

If I were to shoot somebody, the cops would rightly try to get my story ASAP. But a cop gets a few days to either mold his story in the best possible light (assuming the worst), or to start to forget details of the incident (assuming the best). Either way, it's a bad idea. So why do it?