Q: I’m being garnished for child support, leaving me with $150/week (40 hours/wk). I’ve been overcharged & manipulated

A: To be found as wilfully refusing to pay child support, especially by admission, means you repeatedly and unjustifiably were not paying your full child support. You may file for changed circumstances and get the support amount reduced if you are successful, but that will only apply to future payments as of the date you file. There's not much you can do about past delinquencies. Consult a new lawyer experienced in child support for options.

A: The asker is describing a sad situation he is enduring as a parent in modern America. However, he misdiagnoses his ailment by accusing his lawyer of a lack of proper performance rather than accusing the state and its courts with their various anti-parenting policies. We'll go through a few of these now.

Child support was a hysteria ginned up long ago, but its enforcement was a Clinton legacy. This enforcement falls squarely on the white working middle class father who is being made an example of for society not to be a "deadbeat." The very poor men who gave their women children are immune from enforcement as are the very wealthy men. However, the middle class father faces loss of licensure, loss of passport, and incarceration for consecutive six month periods.

The Bradley Amendment of the 1990s prohibits a court from waiving accumulated child support arrears, but the custodial mother can waive those arrears. This is one feature most women do not know about. They go to government for help, and government gives them all the power to decide when to file for support, when to waive arrears and when to terminate support. This means the father should take custody from the beginning and put the mother in the support hot seat.

In New York, only the custodial mother can petition to put the young father in jail for nonpayment. A lawyer will always act to prevent a father's jailing, and that may explain why the lawyer had the father stipulate to make double payments. The steadiness of employment is irrelevant, and the prior administration always said that jobs were gained annually by the millions. Without seeing the case file and without interviewing the asker, we cannot judge whether this was a bad move or a smart move. At east, the lawyer made a move.

We cannot see the papers involved in the custodial arrangement. However, we do know that drugs and kids don't mix in a New York custody court. This means all the mother had to do was claim that dad uses drugs, and the custodial order then points toward the mother. If the asker made promises to endure drug testing before visits, then this is the position he put himself in at the crucial moment when a custody order appeared between the parents.

Hence, the mother is the supervisor and can unilaterally cancel visits even though she is violating the order of custody. The asker loathes the idea of hiring another lawyer to enforce his rights, but that is the only way to put the mother in her place - through family court yet gain.

Lawyers do not threaten men with jail. Lawyers advise men that their exposure during a family court case is jail especially when child support is involved though jail is an available remedy for a custodial interference. Government put the asker in his position and the lawyer is explaining how to avoid government. However, it is plain from these facts that the mother is having it both ways: she can thwart the visits while enforcing child support. This is the result of legislation foisted upon the white working middle class male, and not the result of bad lawyering. Family court is the brainchild of feminist politicians and the only way to survive this period in our history to vote very carefully.

Any other approach requires a lawyer.