Father Paying “Child Support” for Teenage Daughter Living with Him

The following is just another example of how ridiculous and deceptively stupid the phrase “in the best interests of the child” can be at times. The email below, posted with the permission of the father who sent it to me, clearly demonstrates just how little the State of Ohio and its 88 county “Child Support” Enforcement Agencies (CSEAs) care about how “child support” dollars are spent by the custodial parent. For those who don’t know, the reason I usually put “child support” in quotes is because in most cases, the money paid to the custodial parent (CP) by the noncustodial parent (NCP) despite being labeled “child support”, is anything but, and usually goes to support the CPs lifestyle. That is not my opinion, that’s a fact supported by many studies.

For those who wish to argue that last two sentences, you argue in vain. I’ve done the research and have seen a number of unbiased studies that have shown that at most, and in cases where some of the “child support” money is actually spent on the child, only 30% of it is, while the rest is used to enhance the CP’s lifestyle. I know that angers many CPs, and I don’t care. Facts are facts. And don’t ask me to cite the studies, I’ve done it before and am not searching for them again. If you really want to know the truth, you’ll research it.

My views on “child support” have changed over the years and I believe in the concept less than I ever have. My opinion is that BOTH parents have a financial obligation to support their own children, and when only one pays “child support”, in those cases and due to the amount of money extorted from the NCP, they usually end up paying 100% of the expenses involved with raising a child. Additionally, the NCP is usually forced to pay for health\dental\vision insurance on the child(ren) as well as some or all of the CP’S out-of-pocket medical expenses, as well as cell phone and school expenses. That is NOT splitting the financial costs of raising a child, what I just explained is the NCP being forced by the court to pay 100% of said costs. That’s a fact.

Child support moms (CSMs) as I most affectionately call them, almost always resort to the usual straw man argument that they have to provide a roof over the child’s head, buy clothes for and feed them, pay utilities and so on. Well, so does the NCP! Not only that, the NCP pays the “child support” and all other expenses I itemized and the icing on the cake is the CP taking all income tax deductions related to the children of the support order.

I therefore reiterate that “child support” is nothing more than custodial parent support that usually does little more than financially enhancing the custodial parent’s lifestyle at the expense of the children, as the NCP is often forced into living in abject poverty as a result of their financially crippling “child support” order. Many often have little to nothing left to spend on the child or provide entertainment etc. Additionally, the NCP usually lives in terrible and often deplorable living conditions that the children must also experience during their visitation time. Is that really in the best interests of the child as they claim?

Given the aforementioned as well as in most but not all cases, and from a morality standpoint, I don’t believe that any custodial mother should be paid any “child support” whatsoever by the noncustodial parent IF she, and without just moral cause or reason, unilaterally demanded sole custody. When a mother terminates a marriage or relationship simply because they weren’t happy, and again, without justifiable moral cause, they are not entitled to “child support”, period. Why should they be financially rewarded, and VERY GENEROUSLY so, for kicking the father out of the child’s life and vice-versa? They shouldn’t. Additionally, if they have the unmitigated gall to claim they need it because they don’t have the means to support the child, then turn full custody over to the father and pay him “child support.”

It’s both ridiculous and hypocritical to demand sole custody and demand “child support” after kicking the father out of his child’s life. Money aside, the amount of damage, both emotionally and psychologically that it does to children when selfish single mothers by choice willingly choose to be just that, is well documented in studies around the world.

Equal rights is giving fathers equal rights and equal access to their children, not kicking them out of their kids lives then demanding mommy support for the next 18-25 years. Doing so is immoral, selfish, legalized theft and extortion. And worst of all, it harms the children as explained as it forever and irreparably fractures their psyches for life. Yet, due to a degenerate society, such mothers are elevated and praised rather than being castigated and condemned as they should be. I get that there are situations where it’s appropriate to have sole custody and collect child support. However such cases are the exception not the norm, and certainly not in 82.5% of the cases where the custodial parent is the mother as per a 2013 Census Bureau Report.

Think about that statistic; only 17.5% of custodial parents nationwide, are fathers. And what are we expected to extrapolate from that, especially with regard to leftists and feminists opinions? That fathers are inherently evil, terrible parents, incapable of parenting, and not to be trusted with their own children. Don’t get me wrong, Republican pols aren’t much better, and neither Democrats nor Republicans support fathers. It’s quite to the contrary as pols on both sides regularly trash, lecture and denigrate fathers as they pander to feminists.

This is where fathers have failed themselves, as a voting bloc. They should stand as one, but they don’t. I can’t count the number of times when I asked for volunteers to participate in rallies, and not one father would do so. And that, is why all politicians (and corporations in the advertisements) publicly trash fathers; because they can.

See below for the email from Michael. Also, with regard to Michael having to continue paying support because they allegedly can’t serve the mother, that’s laughable. Per Ohio law, the Obligor and Obligee are required to notify the CSEA of changes of address among other things as noted in ORC 3121.24 Parties Must Provide Information to Agency.

(A) Each party to a support order shall notify the child support enforcement agency administering the support order of the party’s current mailing address, current residence address, current residence telephone number, and current driver’s license number, at the time of the issuance or modification of the order. Until further notice of the court or agency, whichever issued the support order, each party shall notify the agency administering the support order of any change in information immediately after the change occurs. With respect to a court support order, any willful failure to comply with this section is contempt of court. No person shall fail to give the notice required by division (A) of this section.

That said, the Court and the CSEA will send notices of hearings etc to the address of record for both the mother and father, and it’s each person’s responsibility to make the necessary updates so they get notification. That said, in Michael’s case below, they should send notice of hearings to the mother’s address of record. How many fathers have had child support orders set in absentia and without ever being notified? Thousands. The State of Ohio cares nothing about financially ruining this father and literally, as he says, taking food out of the mouth of the very child they pretend to be helping.

As I’ve argued time and again, and in this post, the phrase, “in the best interest of the child” is an absolute joke and is mostly used to trample the rights of fathers and noncustodial mothers. The CSEA knows that Michael’s “child support” dollars are going to support an absentee mother’s lifestyle and they care not because they couldn’t care less about those children who are supposed to get support.

To his questions about what can be done; with regard to the CSEA, pretty much nothing in my opinion. The CSEA is a part of the increasingly out-of-control Administrative State in this country which essentially is comprised of unelected authoritative bureaucrats whose unchecked power is often used to abuse in the case of “child support” mainly fathers who didn’t ask to be kicked out of their child’s lives and turned into paying visitors of their own children. Although to the CSEAs defense, it’s Family Courts, at the request of mostly mothers, who kick the father out of children’s lives.

What I would ask of his attorney’s is why the mother isn’t served at her address of record with the courts? It’s her responsibility to keep that updated and show up. It’s not the court’s or CSEA’s responsibility to track her down. The court can also rule on what constitutes serving the mother.

Additionally, I’d file a motion with court requesting that “child support” be terminated on the basis of what he states below, that the child is living with him, the mother is absent and has been for years, and that the money being taken from him is affecting his ability to take care of and support his daughter. And that, is clearly not in the best interest of the child.

The courts do hold the power to modify and terminate “child support” orders at their discretion so long as the reasons for doing so are, “in the best interest of the child.” A simple morality test would dictate that no more money should be stolen from the father in this case but we live in a very immoral society filled with a lot of evil and greedy people. This is nothing more than a court ordered government sanctioned theft of this father’s money, literally and is sickening. Think about this; following the logic of “we can’t find her to serve her” (although I’m not clear on why that’s an issue given this is an existing case), then this father will have to pay “child support” for the rest of his life.

The CSEA could find her, they just don’t want to because terminating his child support order terminates the profit that they make on his payments. Yes, the CSEA PROFITS off of “child support” payments. The CSEA knows exactly what city she is in as she’s using her “child support” debit card to go to bars, restaurants, get her hair done, gas up her car, go to restaurants, gamble or whatever it is she does with the money that she’s allowed to steal from this father under the guise of “child support.

The CSEA could also use all of these tools available to them to locate a noncustodial parent to enforce a support order, but not to locate a deadbeat custodial mother stealing money from a father through Ohio’s CSEA? What, do the tools suddenly break when a custodial parent’s name is entered? The fact is, the State of Ohio doesn’t care that the child involved here is being harmed, they care only about their “child support” profit.

Michael mentions that his bank accounts have been cleaned out by the CSEA and his income tax refunds have been seized so that even more money could be stolen from him and given to the nowhere to be found mother of his daughter with whom the child does not live. There are ways to stop that theft from reoccurring. If Michael had access to a bank account under which was opened by someone he trusted, that wouldn’t happen because his social security number wouldn’t be on the account, and it’s by that number that they seize the funds. I am NOT advocating that he or anyone else break the law. That works best when a father is remarried and can access the funds in an account that his current wife has opened under her social.

With regard to income tax refunds being seized by the IRS, there are ways to avoid that my not getting refunds. That can be accomplished by claiming more exemptions to lower your withholdings. Be careful there and consult with a CPA or at least research the IRS rules yourself. Many financial planners also recommend that you do that so you aren’t allowing the IRS to use your money interest free all year by overpaying your federal taxes and thereby getting a large refund. I’m not an accountant so again, research that before doing it.


Tony Fantetti
Ohio Council for Fathers Rights
Email: tony(dot)fantetti(at)ocffr(dot)org

I have a 14 year old daughter that I take care of full time with NO help from the mother and have been for many years. Throughout the 10 years since the mother left she has had my daughter maybe 6 months of that time. The mother is all over the place moving from state to state, in and out of jail and yet I have to pay child support for my daughter only because a court paper says the mother has custody. At this point they have extorted and cleaned out 3 bank accounts of mine, dinged my credit rating and have taken ALL my tax refund. I have called my case worker repeatedly to explain that they are taking food from the mouth of the child they are supposed to be helping. Yet, because there is a court paper that says the mother has custody they continue to extort money from me. I have had 2 lawyers over the past 3 years working on this, have spent money I do not have to spare on them to only be told that we can’t find the mother to be able to server her and get her to court so we can change this order. At this point I can only compare the Child support agency to the Nazi’s, they are doing an injustice to the child they are supposed to be helping and only because they are told to, because a court paper says the mother supports the child, when in fact she does nothing to help the child. Nor is the child support agency. They are only making it harder for me to take care of her by extorting money from me who supports her fully. At this point I would like to sue the agency according to the Nuremberg Defense, a legal ploy in which the defendant claims he/she was “only following orders” from a higher authority. Something needs to be done about this injustice as I am sure I am not the only one dealing with this type of situation. They will not look into it to see that I am telling them the truth, which it wouldn’t take much digging to figure it out. They would rather spend their resources trying to figure out how to extort more money from me and destroy my credit. What’s hard to believe is there are parents out there that can’t get the money they are owed and are suffering but the agency has no problem taking money from a parent that is actually taking care of and supporting a child fully. What a joke this agency is! Can’t help parents that need it and destroying the parents that are actually taking care of the child. THIS MUST BE FIXED!

My question to you Tony is, do you know of any pending class action lawsuits that fit my situation that you know of? Or do you know of a lawyer that would take on a case like this?
Thank you so much for reading and thank you for your time and due diligence in all that you do to help parents.

Michael ********

This entry was posted in Child Support, Child Support Moms (CSMs), Emails from Others, Ohio Child Support Enforcement Agency (CSEA), This is in the "Best Interests of the Children?" and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Father Paying “Child Support” for Teenage Daughter Living with Him

  1. Rusty says:

    I have three children that I paid full child support on for many years while they lived with me and I took care of the vast majority of parenting duties. The other parent also received public assistance in the former of rent subsidies, utility assistance, medical, food assistance etc. The court as well as job and family services was aware of and approved of it up to the point of one of the court orders setting g it that way. The continued legal harrasment along with draining of fund has left me unable to continue caring for children. The system has placed me in a position of defending myself against an onslaught of child support enforcement activity as family legal issues and other damages have led to an unworkable situagion.