Dear Jessie,<BR>Our ow is a convenience store clerk.<BR>Ow has always had a medical card for oc (even back when my h was forced to provide her with private health insurance, which cost over 300.00 per month), she has always gotten food stamps, and she lives in federally subsidized housing (with her boyfriend, who doesn't report his income or that he lives there to officials so that they can keep paying the reduced amount for rent).<P>None of those things - not food stamps, medical assistance, or subsidized housing - require ow to sue for cs. she has always had those things without my h having to pay child support. However, she decided that she wanted her child to attend the most expensive daycare around and found out that she could do that for free because the state would make my h pay for it. So she reopened the child support case. Now h has to pay for the expensive daycare on top of everything else because if he wasn't paying for it, the state would subsidize her. And that's what she insists her child "deserves". Never mind that the rest of us pick child care that we can afford. Since she has my h as a cash cow, why bother to make sacrifices. it irks me to no end that not only are we paying for child support and the daycare, but we are also paying for her food and housing (via our taxes) and she doesn't even have to claim the amount she gets from us on her taxes. she is winning in both ways, any way you look at it. It also gets me mad that the live-in boyfriend, who only works part-time, could easily babysit the oc while ow works. if he is such a great "daddy" to her, why doesn't he watch her instead of the daycare?<P>Anyway, I guess this will answer your question: In our state, the only way the state jumps in to demand support is if:<BR>1. The mother of oc is getting cash from welfare<BR>2. The mother of the oc is getting subsidized daycare.<BR>Hope that helps<BR>-cd
