Question:
We're considering employing the services of a collection agency. There
are quite a few of these private agencies advertising on the internet.
Any recomendations (or experiences) to share?
Answer:
-I have had marginal success with CSE out of Austin, Texas. My ex is $36K
behind, but they at least get some support when they can track him down.
-I am curious. If a NCP is behind by $36k, what benefit would there be to
the child to collect this money? I am just adding this in my head, but if I
guess at $500 a month; that would be $6k for a year. From the original
total, this would be 6 years behind. Who gets this $36k, the child?
Doubtful.
The reason I bring it up is I have always had a problem with my ex seeking
money because she supposedly can't make it. If she has a problem making
ends meet, then send my daughter to live with me. It is a pet peeve of mind
that the government can give a woman welfare indefinately while gaining some
amount from the father. As long is there no reasonable reason why the child
could not live with the other parent, the state should allow the child to be
placed with the other parent while the parent requesting state aid could
look for work instead of asking for welfare because of a child. The child
doesn't need the welfare if the other parent has a home to place the child;
it is the mother who needs the welfare or she would need to go to work.
I know I went off a bit on a tangent there, but back to the original request
to collect the $36k. I have always thought that the real reason some of
these laws were created were to help out the family. I believe that if
someone needs this 36k to live, there should be proof that there were loans
outstanding now that warrant collecting the $36k.
I just have this weird feeling when I read the original post that if a child
was reared by one parent for 16 years and there was an order for $500 month
all this time; what happens if the other parent is now found and is arrears
by $96,000? Obviously by the word of the law, the debt is there. But can
one really say that the money was needed since the child has made it to age
16 without that $500 a month? It might have made things more comfortable
with a bigger house, or newer clothes, better bike, more toys, etc..., but
what would it serve now to retreive this $96k? Would the child really get
the money for living expenses that he/she did not have while growing up?
Again, I think I am rambling, so will end here.
