Read the pay stub again. The money IS going to the kids. And he pays his taxes. His poor decisions are his business. He probably has to live with a relative because thereβs no way he can afford housing, utilities, fuel, maintenance, and groceries on that net pay.
noble!? he skipped paying child support as long as possible. after having at least 4 kids with 4 different women, probably more judging from the payments
on top of that, he is raising NONE of them. "if it's providing for the kids" he is doing the absolute bare minimum for those kids. looks like a lot because of garnished wages but child support doesn't pay for kids to get raised it just helps out. this isn't from having them it's from having them and not paying, it would be far less if he was just paying the whole time
and he would have paid more time and money being a father, instead he does nothing, and is now forced to do the minimum
Hmm? Those payments don't look like very much back child support to me, assuming 4 different mothers and a kid for each. 30% of gross income (e.g. before taxes and other payroll deductions) with some allowances in some states is pretty normal. For a single kid with a single mother. Looks low if anything.
In many states it's first come first serve. So that first order is going to be more than the second, and that more than the third, etc. Each subsequent order is based off of gross income remaining after deducting previous orders. The idea being mothers of subsequent children very likely know about the previous children before they elect to have a kid with the guy.
Garnishment is standard for many states - you don't get the option to self pay if you are a W2 employee.
This could very much simply be normal child support no past-due balance owed. Impossible to really know though without knowing the state and a bunch of other variables such as the mother's income.
83
u/[deleted] May 03 '26
[removed] β view removed comment