https://www.youtube.com/live/Dc5mDUSIFx4

I have not seen it discussed yet, but Jeff Younger was interviewed on Tim Pool's show last week. It's one of the most damning interviews I've heard regarding Texas family law.

In addition to the state not having an appeal process for family courts to address his son's custody and transitioning conflict -- he also claims that the Texas government is paid $500 million* a year via child support, that the state is paid 66 cents by the federal government for every dollar that a parent pays in child support, and that courts always rule to grant one parent 24% visitation to maximize state revenues.

It's absolutely sickening, but a must listen.

Edit: He claims that Texas raises nearly half a billion dollars, not half a trillion

Saw that; it's a system designed to benefit the government, not families.

Are his assertions true?

Good thing we vote hard for the GOP that gives the same big gov nonsense as the Dems but at a different pace and message.

Bothersome that the sheep are led by wolves on both sides yet people will crawl over glass to vote for their team rather than exploring alternatives that actually put emphasis on limited gov.

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Are his assertions true?

---

I don't know. But given the amount of government corruption that I read about everyday I wouldn't be surprised if all of it's true.

AggieKeith15 said:

---

https://www.youtube.com/live/Dc5mDUSIFx4

I have not seen it discussed yet, but Jeff Younger was interviewed on Tim Pool's show last week. It's one of the most damning interviews I've heard regarding Texas family law.

In addition to the state not having an appeal process for family courts to address his son's custody and transitioning conflict -- he also claims that the Texas government is paid $500 Billion a year via child support, that the state is paid 66 cents on the dollar by parents paying child support, and that courts always rule to grant one parent 24% visitation to maximize state revenues.

It's absolutely sickening, but a must listen.

---

This is the biggest load of crap I've ever read on F16. Ever.

Yeah no part of that is true. The state getting 66% of child support, not even close. And if he is getting only 24% custody something went really bad during the custody hearing because even standard is more than that. You won't find anyone who thinks Texas family law needs a major overhaul than me, but people saying stupid stuff like that just hurts our case.
ETA: of course there is an appeals process, you can appeal as far up the chain as you and your wallet can tolerate. Once again, pure crap.

I hope that's the case. However, even if his figures are incorrect, I would be interested to know if there is any merit to the claim that the state is directly benefiting by breaking up families.

If that's true in any capacity then it's time to start mass protesting.

his 28% is probably every other weekend and one night a week

his government skimming off the top do people not pay directly to the baby mama?

AggieKeith15 said:

---

I hope that's the case. However, even if his figures are incorrect, I would be interested to know if there is any merit to the claim that the state is directly benefiting by breaking up families.

If that's true in any capacity then it's time to start mass protesting.

---

Well, not a word of it is true.

Quote:

---

In addition to the state not having an appeal process for family courts to address his son's custody and transitioning conflict (this is complete BS. It has the same appeal process as any civil case, court of appeals, Texas Supreme Court)-- he also claims that the Texas government is paid $500 Billion a year via child support, (from whom?) that the state is paid 66 cents on the dollar by parents paying child support,(again, this is complete nonsense) and that courts always rule to grant one parent 24% visitation to maximize state revenues. (This is too stupid to even warrant a response. I don't know who this numbnuts is, but he is a pathological liar)

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Are his assertions true?

---

No.

Old Army Ghost said:

---

his 28% is probably every other weekend and one night a week

---

Except standard is that during normal school year (which means 4 nights in a row every other week with one night on the off weeks), plus a whole month in the summer, plus either spring break or thanksgiving break depending on the year, plus time over Xmas break. I believe if you do the math it's somewhere north of 45% of the nights in a year.

Occasionally some legislator will get it in their head that we need to overhaul things to make it 50/50 by default, until the family law bar sends someone to gently explain that it's basically that way already and it loses steam.

You are dead on the money about everything you said. I do wish that they would follow through with it being straight up 50/50. My reasoning is the child support. My ex has the kids <5% more than me but I have to pay a shocking amount of child support. People seem to forget that they live at Dad's house too. That means a large enough house, car to haul them around, food, clothes, vacation etc. The way it stands now that 5% more time she gets with the kids costs me a shocking amount of money. Lets put it this way, if it was 50/50 no child support I would have had their college funds completely funded before they started high school.

I work very, very closely with these issues, and I can say, without equivocation, that
the OP is as full of as much garbage as I have ever seen on TexAgs, and that's saying something.

cslifer said:

---

You are dead on the money about everything you said. I do wish that they would follow through with it being straight up 50/50. My reasoning is the child support. My ex has the kids <5% more than me but I have to pay a shocking amount of child support. People seem to forget that they live at Dad's house too. That means a large enough house, car to haul them around, food, clothes, vacation etc. The way it stands now that 5% more time she gets with the kids costs me a shocking amount of money. Lets put it this way, if it was 50/50 no child support I would have had their college funds completely funded before they started high school.

---

And to make matters even worse, the ex usually gets to claim all the kids as deductions on income tax.

localag88 said:

---

I work very, very closely with these issues, and I can say, without equivocation, that
the OP is as full of as much garbage as I have ever seen on TexAgs, and that's saying something.

---

Shocker

localag88 said:

---

I work very, very closely with these issues, and I can say, without equivocation, that
the OP is as full of as much garbage as I have ever seen on TexAgs, and that's saying something.

---

I love these types of posts. State that you are an expert on the topic being discussed without providing any sort of information on the matter...then say the OP is 100% wrong on every account and not provide a single piece of information stating why the OP is wrong.

I really hope you are correct and the info in the OP is wrong...but just calling the OP garbage does nothing to actually help the topic. Please provide some level of detail (links, articles, something) that states it. Maybe its cynical to help think a message board like this could help educate people a little bit, but it sure would be nice if people would provide a little context when saying posts are completely wrong.

And spare me all the excuses about "if you're too dumb to fall for OP, then no amount of documentation or links will change your mind" crap.

Since he said Title IV-D is the source of the "extra" money that Texas gets setting up a child support enforcement system, that's what he contends is the 66 cents on the dollar. I've never heard of that but here's Texas' Title IV-D information.

Interesting enough to look into this some more.

I can personally say this is not true at all

localag88 said:

---

I work very, very closely with these issues, and I can say, without equivocation, that
the OP is as full of as much garbage as I have ever seen on TexAgs, and that's saying something.

---

I was merely relaying what sounded to be a horrific circumstance and an ongoing injustice in our state justice system.

Please watch the interview yourself and provide rebuttals. The conversation is a good one to have regardless of the man's assertions -- the government's involvement in family life should be limited if not forbidden entirely.

Ok. His statement about courts always ruling for one party to only have the kids 24% of the time is untrue. That is far below even the standard possession order which is what courts default to. His statement about parents paying 66 cents on the dollar to the state via child support is untrue. My ex gets 100% of what I pay (tax free to her by the way). The only money the state gets from me is the couple of dollar fee they charge me for the pleasure of letting them take my money straight from my employer.

cslifer said:

---

His statement about parents paying 66 cents on the dollar to the state via child support is untrue. My ex gets 100% of what I pay (tax free to her by the way). The only money the state gets from me is the couple of dollar fee they charge me for the pleasure of letting them take my money straight from my employer.

---

He didn't say the state gets your money. He said the Feds give them money based on how much child support they collect, which incentivizes the state to submit judgements which are probably unfair. Listen to the details of the video and you'll hear that.

I used to administer child support checks and I know 100% of the employees' money went to the spouse.

bqce said:

---

Since he said Title IV-D is the source of the "extra" money that Texas gets setting up a child support enforcement system, that's what he contends is the 66 cents on the dollar. I've never heard of that but here's Texas' Title IV-D information.

Interesting enough to look into this some more.

---

Here is what the OP said:

Quote:

---

the state is paid 66 cents on the dollar by parents paying child support

---

That is flat out wrong. the parents don't pay anything to the state. Does the state receive money from the feds based on CS collections? Probably, but the parents don't pay a red cent.

Martin Cash said:

---

bqce said:

---

Since he said Title IV-D is the source of the "extra" money that Texas gets setting up a child support enforcement system, that's what he contends is the 66 cents on the dollar. I've never heard of that but here's Texas' Title IV-D information.

Interesting enough to look into this some more.

---

Here is what the OP said:

Quote:

---

the state is paid 66 cents on the dollar by parents paying child support

---

That is flat out wrong. the parents don't pay anything to the state. Does the state receive money from the feds based on CS collections? Probably, but the parents don't pay a red cent.

---

You are fixating on a technicality of my OP explanation. It should have read "for every dollar paid" instead. Fine.

But, if the state is being incentivized by the federal government to breakup families, do you really not see a problem with that? And are you not able to say that such an incentive doesn't exist?

Martin Cash said:

---

bqce said:

---

Since he said Title IV-D is the source of the "extra" money that Texas gets setting up a child support enforcement system, that's what he contends is the 66 cents on the dollar. I've never heard of that but here's Texas' Title IV-D information.

Interesting enough to look into this some more.

---

Here is what the OP said:

Quote:

---

the state is paid 66 cents on the dollar by parents paying child support

---

That is flat out wrong. the parents don't pay anything to the state. Does the state receive money from the feds based on CS collections? Probably, but the parents don't pay a red cent.

---

OP was wrong, but the interview is correct. And the problem that causes is that it encourages the state give primary custody to the deadbeat parent and award maximum child support payments to the responsible working adult. If the court ordered 50/50 custody and no child support, the state would loose half a billion in payments from the FED.

Quote:

---

This is the biggest load of crap I've ever read on F16. Ever.

---

Said any wuhan post.

That's not a technicality. It completely changes the argument.

AggieKeith15 said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

bqce said:

---

Since he said Title IV-D is the source of the "extra" money that Texas gets setting up a child support enforcement system, that's what he contends is the 66 cents on the dollar. I've never heard of that but here's Texas' Title IV-D information.

Interesting enough to look into this some more.

---

Here is what the OP said:

Quote:

---

the state is paid 66 cents on the dollar by parents paying child support

---

That is flat out wrong. the parents don't pay anything to the state. Does the state receive money from the feds based on CS collections? Probably, but the parents don't pay a red cent.

---

You are fixating on a technicality of my OP explanation. It should have read "for every dollar paid" instead. Fine.

But, if the state is being incentivized by the federal government to breakup families, do you really not see a problem with that? And are you not able to say that such an incentive doesn't exist?

---

I'm saying exactly that, and it's not a technicality. Saying that 66% of the child support payments go the state and not to the custodial parent is just a flat out lie. The AG child support division is overwhelmed with deadbeats and trying to enforce CS orders. If you think they are out encouraging divorces so they can get a bigger slice of the pie from the feds, you are delusional. They don't even handle divorces, they handle Suits Affecting the Parent Child Relationship. The people involved are either already divorced and daddy isn't paying CS, or they have never been married and are no longer shacking up and daddy isn't supporting the child. The state is NOT being incentivized to break up families.

Win At Life said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

bqce said:

---

Since he said Title IV-D is the source of the "extra" money that Texas gets setting up a child support enforcement system, that's what he contends is the 66 cents on the dollar. I've never heard of that but here's Texas' Title IV-D information.

Interesting enough to look into this some more.

---

Here is what the OP said:

Quote:

---

the state is paid 66 cents on the dollar by parents paying child support

---

That is flat out wrong. the parents don't pay anything to the state. Does the state receive money from the feds based on CS collections? Probably, but the parents don't pay a red cent.

---

OP was wrong, but the interview is correct. And the problem that causes is that it encourages the state give primary custody to the deadbeat parent and award maximum child support payments to the responsible working adult. If the court ordered 50/50 custody and no child support, the state would loose half a billion in payments from the FED.

---

This is a total crock. You have no earthly idea what you are talking about.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

That's not a technicality. It completely changes the argument.

---

I updated OP just for you. You're good now, right?

Martin Cash said:

---

AggieKeith15 said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

bqce said:

---

Since he said Title IV-D is the source of the "extra" money that Texas gets setting up a child support enforcement system, that's what he contends is the 66 cents on the dollar. I've never heard of that but here's Texas' Title IV-D information.

Interesting enough to look into this some more.

---

Here is what the OP said:

Quote:

---

the state is paid 66 cents on the dollar by parents paying child support

---

That is flat out wrong. the parents don't pay anything to the state. Does the state receive money from the feds based on CS collections? Probably, but the parents don't pay a red cent.

---

You are fixating on a technicality of my OP explanation. It should have read "for every dollar paid" instead. Fine.

But, if the state is being incentivized by the federal government to breakup families, do you really not see a problem with that? And are you not able to say that such an incentive doesn't exist?

---

I'm saying exactly that, and it's not a technicality. Saying that 66% of the child support payments go the state and not to the custodial parent is just a flat out lie. The AG child support division is overwhelmed with deadbeats and trying to enforce CS orders. If you think they are out encouraging divorces so they can get a bigger slice of the pie from the feds, you are delusional. They don't even handle divorces, they handle Suits Affecting the Parent Child Relationship. The people involved are either already divorced and daddy isn't paying CS, or they have never been married and are no longer shacking up and daddy isn't supporting the child. The state is NOT being incentivized to break up families.

---

No, it is a technicality.

The state remains incentivized to make your child support be as high as possible. The divorce is just the excuse for them to crook their way in -- if what he is saying is true then the system celebrates divorces.

AggieKeith15 said:

---

No, it is a technicality.

The state remains incentivized to make your child support be as high as possible. The divorce is just the excuse for them to crook their way in -- if what he is saying is true then the system celebrates divorces.

---

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. The 'state' doesn't do divorces. CS is based on a mathematical formula. It's pretty much cut and dried. You are talking about a system you obviously know nothing about and you should let it go.

My guess is that Mr. Cash is a family law attorney, judge, works in a law office, some other lawyer sticking up for the profession, married to a family law worker, lobbyist, or works for the state. Dude will go out of his way to put down any criticism on the family law industry that pays out its salaries and donations through legalized child trafficking.

Martin Cash said:

---

AggieKeith15 said:

---

No, it is a technicality.

The state remains incentivized to make your child support be as high as possible. The divorce is just the excuse for them to crook their way in -- if what he is saying is true then the system celebrates divorces.

---

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. The 'state' doesn't do divorces. CS is based on a mathematical formula. It's pretty much cut and dried. You are talking about a system you obviously know nothing about and you should let it go.

---

I think you are the one who doesn't understand the situation here properly. The state doesn't decide who files for divorce, that is correct, but when the state receives a divorce case and awards 50/50 custody with the result of no child support paid by either parent, they lose the $500MM federal funding they would otherwise receive by giving one parent less custody and making them pay the child support payments.

Martin Cash said:

---

AggieKeith15 said:

---

No, it is a technicality.

The state remains incentivized to make your child support be as high as possible. The divorce is just the excuse for them to crook their way in -- if what he is saying is true then the system celebrates divorces.

---

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. The 'state' doesn't do divorces. CS is based on a mathematical formula. It's pretty much cut and dried. You are talking about a system you obviously know nothing about and you should let it go.

---

You are arguing past the argument.

The formula was not created by God; and a formula does not determine the maximum child support payment, which would be the biggest component of concern as it relates to the federal government paying 66 cents on the dollar to the state.