New Haven Independent

Posted by: BoA Watch | May 11, 2009 12:10 PM

Ouch! Not good for Paca. No sir, not one bit good.

BTW, isn't Greer part of the machine? Doesn't he pull votes for Silverman? Such hypocrisy. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see this came from the Greers.

Posted by: GOPACA | May 11, 2009 12:17 PM

Paca you still have my vote! We still support you and don't feel beat down by this.

Posted by: ToughBreak | May 11, 2009 12:40 PM

Too bad Alderman are only paid $2000/year stipend. The way I see it The kid is running a solid campaign and cares for the community. Hell at least we know he isn't in it for the money.

Posted by: Alphonse Credenza | May 11, 2009 12:43 PM

GOPACA -- are you serious? He will get peppered with media shrapnel for this, and well-deserved, too.

Posted by: Chet | May 11, 2009 12:50 PM

I'm still trying to determine how this effects Paca's legitimacy as a candidate. I agree %100 with Paca when he mentions having to pay child support is nothing to be ashamed of. Presently, times are hard so, unfortunately fathers that are doing all they can, just aren't able to do enough financially. I see a young man who cares about his community as well as his kids and isn't ashamed or hiding a thing (I think this article proves that). The question that should be asked is...can a single father with two children who's been effected by a rough economy, doing all he can, giving all he can, while still running a "serious" campaign and staying positive amidst it all be a good candidate? I think so.

-Chet

Posted by: Shabbazz | May 11, 2009 12:55 PM

Mr. Boa,

The assertion that the Greer's had anything to do with this story is completly false. Since I spoke with Marcus Paca about this issue and know it's source. Since your from City Hall you're attempt to blame someone else is absurd and dishonest.

Try again.

Posted by: NEIGHBOR | May 11, 2009 1:01 PM

More of the infamous Eliezer at his best or worst for that matter. Back off Eli and let Lizzy and Paca hash this out the good ole fashioned way. Geshhhh it's an aldermanic election!

People act irrationally in the mist of fear.

Posted by: Oh Hell No | May 11, 2009 1:09 PM

- i can understand friends and family members supporting the kid no matter what. Hello that's a given. But the rest of the voters of our ward should seriously rethink if they were going to vote for this kid. I sure "rethought" it and will now be voting for Liz.

NOT knowing you have little ones in different states, NOT paying your child support, HAVING a warrant and getting ARRESTED says a lot about your character. The youngest it says is only 3 years old. Isn't this kid married? Don't tell me this is all irrelevant shit we was about to impeach Clinton because of a "personal" matter. You seek PUBLIC office then everything you do is PUBLIC info like it or not that's the reality.

Posted by: Bruce Eden | May 11, 2009 1:12 PM

I am tired of the press and government attacking politicians on their child support records. Let's get something straight--child support is not a crime. It is a civil matter. Instead of trying to criminalize this issue, the press should be asking why child support is a problem in this nation? Heres the reason why:

Government, with its lapdog press, likes to pick on groups of people to create animosity and divisiveness. It's time to show the government for the real "deadbeat" that it is.

According to a 7-year study done by Arizona State University Professor Sanford Braver, Ph.D., which resulted in his book, "Divorced Dads--Shattering the Myths", he found that less than 5% of those that owed child support are true deadbeat dads-the ones with the younger trophy wives and sports cars, who don't want to pay anything. The truth of the matter, is that according to the Federal Gov't. General Accounting Office, Report # GAO/HRD-92-39FS, pg. 19, over 66% of those owing child support can't pay because they are unemployed, underemployed, disabled, dead, and in some cases the mothers don't want support.

Judges order such onerous child support amounts in some cases, along with alimony, daycare, medical expenses, and other expenses, that the father can't survive. He ends up becoming despondent, leaves his job and drops out of sight. He loses all contact with his child(ren) as a result. This is the government's ultimate goal. Breaking up of father-headed families (and then mother-headed ones when there are no more fathers, wherein, the government will come for the children without any resistance). Government doesn't do anything for altruism. They always have a motive behind what they do and the laws they make. It's all about money, power and control.

Judges refuse to reduce child support and alimony when a man loses his job because of the current economic climate. They tell the guy that it's too soon to reduce support because "you might get another job" in a short time. Most often the guy never gets the same-salaried position and winds up making substantially less. All the while, he falls farther and farther behind, with no hope of ever making up the arrearages.

But, do the courts reduce support? No. They keep it there until the arrears are so high, that the guy's credit is ruined, and they start putting warrants out for his arrest, even though he did everything he was supposed to do by law.

Judges then use detainers to hold the men in jail, somewhat like bail. But, it isn't bail, because child support is a CIVIL debt. Detainers to keep the men in jail until they pay? STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES! It's not about the children! Keeping a man in jail to pay support is an oxymoron. And, most of the Family Court judges are morons! How does one pay child support if in jail? Does he work in the jail making $10, $15, $20/hr. and have his wages garnished? Does this person invoke the INSOLVENT DEBTORS STATUTES when he gets out of jail, since he has no assets or income, and the jailing served as the remedy for the debt owed? Under the INSOLVENT DEBTORS STATUTES, the debt has been paid once the person has been jailed for it and released. But, the state will try and keep the arrears on the books.

The reason for this: Because judges are granting high orders and enforcing them stringently because the Federal government pays the states a federal reimbursement incentive funding (42 USC Section 658a) for amounts awarded, collected and enforced. This money goes into the state coffers, no strings attached (42 USC Section 658f). The first things paid out of state treasuries are judicial salaries and pensions and state employee salaries and pensions.

This is a major unconstitutional conflict-of-interest that has been outlawed by the US Supreme Court in Tumey v. Ohio, Ward v. Monroeville, Gibson v. Berryhill and other cases. The Supreme Court held that judges and officials (i.e., child support probation officials) who sit in judgment of cases that they have a financial interest in, are too tempted to abuse their contempt powers to jail unsuspecting litigants-taxpayers to extort/extract more and more monies out of them to increase the amount of funding, and ultimately increase their salaries and pensions.

Yet, family court judges continue to thumb their noses at the US Supreme Court mandates. This is not only contempt of the Supreme Court, but felony official misconduct by judges, who are public officials that swore an oath to uphold, support and defend the U.S. Constitution and their respective state constitution. By refusing to disqualify themselves from these cases, where they have a financial interest in the outcome of them, the Supreme Court has held that their orders are essentially null and void and have no effect or force.

Some will say that if we don't have judges or hearing officers to enforce orders, how then will they be enforced? As a taxpayer and voter, that is not our problem. The government made the situation. They must fix it. They can fix it by empanelling a group of people that have no financial interest (for example, economists, vocational experts, marriage experts, accountants, psychologists, even lawyers and retired judges). But, they cannot use arbitrary and capricious contempt powers.

Anyone arrested on one of these orders is being arrested for not only a fraudulent order, but on a CIVIL matter. The U.S. Court of Appeals (2nd highest courts in the land) as well as the US Supreme Ct. hold that one can't be arrested on a CIVIL matter because there is no 4th Amendment probable cause that a crime has been committed to issue an arrest warrant. See, Stevens v. Rose (9th Cir. 2002), Allen v. City of Portland (9th Cir. 1995), Wooley v. City of Baton Rouge (5th Cir. 2000), Peterson v. City of Plymouth (8th Cir. 1995), Moore v. Marketplace Rest.(7th Cir. 1985), Paff v. Kaltenbach (3rd Cir. 2000). Also, included is the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals case of U.S. v. Parker, 108 F.3d 28, 30-31 (3rd Cir. 1997)(child support a civil, commercial debt). In U.S. v. Lewko, 269 F.3d 64, 68-69 (1st Cir. 2001), the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held that child support is nothing more than a common civil, commercial debt, and that it is NOT any "special kind of debt". Again, another fraud perpetrated by government officials. Every other Circuit has followed suit and hold that child support is a common commercial, civil debt.

The child support industry is a total fraud. It is a $5-$10 BILLION per year INDUSTRY that, if eliminated, the monies saved and sent to the children that supposedly need it, would wipe out all child support arrears in the US at one time. All that would be needed to do is send the BILLIONS in the form of a Social Security check or wire transfer, since child support enforcement laws are part of the entire Social Security Act.

Lastly, fathers arrested and jailed, or slandered by the press, will find an unusual way to pay their child support. They will sue the media, or the sheriff's officers and sheriff's departments, probation dept's, or child support enforcement depts. (because probation workers and child support enforcement workers sought warrants when they are neither attorneys, nor were those arrested were ever on probation). They will sue for Civil Rights Damages and for FALSE ARREST, ASSAULT, AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT (e.g., New Jersey Constitution, Article I, Section 13, it prohibits Imprisonment for Debt in ANY action; every other state has such a prohibition; and 18 U.S.C. Sections 1581 and 1589 prohibit involuntary servitude by taking someone under government threat and making them work for someone else to pay off a debt).

Even if they can't collect, the state will be paid for the uncollectible debt, to insure a win-win situation for the state. They collect if he pays, and they collect if he doesn't. Child support has long since stopped being about supporting children or relieving taxpayers of the welfare burden. It has now become a lucrative "REVENUE STREAM" for the states, bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars per year. in addition to being a communistic
"TRANSFER OF WEALTH" scheme for the entitlement of women, lawyers and child support INDUSTRY. If not so, then why don't we hear about DEADBEAT MOMS, who fail to pay ordered support in over 70% of cases?

Before castigating the fathers for not supporting their children, show some concern for the corrupt courts who CREATE those fatherless children for profit. The judges and politicians, over the past thirty years, have trivialized fatherhood by giving sole custody to the mothers in 90(+)% of cases, denying fathers their due process rights, treating them like criminals, and separating them from their children in order to separate them from their money. Divorced, or single fathers have had fatherhood beaten out of them, and so, have no consideration for the responsibilities of siring children. Neither is there any respect for marriage by the women bearing those children.

Fatherlessness breeds sexual promiscuity. The socialist-liberals in the courts, the legislatures, and the editorial offices have created a problem. Then they designed programs to throw money at the problem. Those programs have the opposite affect from what was desired. Instead of slowing or stopping the problem, they made it WORSE, creating even MORE fatherlessness. When you analyze the situation with an open mind, it may occur to you, as it has to some, that failure to pay child support might actually a rebellion against tyranny.
Some will say "it hurts the children" when you don't pay. It hurts the children when the custodial mother, supported and empowered by the courts and politicians, deprive the children of contact with their father, which, according to empirical studies, occurs 75% of the time. No wonder there is a lost generation of children out there. It's not an accident. It's by design. The government breaks up families for profit, gain, power and control.

Remember that the next time you accuse someone of being a "deadbeat dad"! The newspaper here needs to submit an apology. It's only a matter of time where guys will sue the papers for slander, defamation, liable, gender discrimination, sedition, etc.

Bruce Eden, Civil Rights Director
DADS (Dads Against Discrimination)--NJ & NY Chapters
www.dadsamerica.org
(Click on NJ web page)

Posted by: AI | May 11, 2009 1:18 PM

New Haven this is no longer grass roots politics. Someone clearly has it out for the guy! Paul reveal your source is it City of New Haven? Greer? Campbell? or Child's Mother/Ex- Friend?

Posted by: WOW | May 11, 2009 1:26 PM

Amazing,

This has nothing to do with Lizzy, Eli or Hank. They don't begin to even know any of this kids history nor should they. I was waiting for this to blow up and thought that we would find this out in July/August. The cat is out of the bag and more kittens will be born. Why the Hell the City backed this kid is beyond me, very short sighted. I told you Marcus not to run and keep yourself out of the politics for this issue and many others. Shame on New Haven.

Posted by: Tom | May 11, 2009 1:27 PM

Is this a story relevant to the race in Ward 24?

Marcus has always been straightforward with respect to the facts published here -- I just hope that all concerned can move on and focus on the issues facing the Ward that are important to Ward 24 voters.

Posted by: Greg Smith | May 11, 2009 1:51 PM

Marcus I understand the Child Support thing and you are right, its nothing to be ashame of. Its hard to live when you are giving up a large portion of your pay for child support and more than likely the support is not going to address the needs of the child or children. The other thing is for those of us who are paying support faithfully, where is the incentive to continue when you cannot not get a tax break on what you are paying and the custodial parent is getting this money tax free and claiming them on her tax return at the same time. I think if you are paying your support you should be rewarded by deducting it at the end of the year. This will give men or women for that matter the incentive to keep paying.

Posted by: bebe1222 | May 11, 2009 1:57 PM

....recent nominees to obama's cabinet had tax problems....true we are in an a tough economy which didn't get bad yesterday he has a 3 year old...... also, i've been on many job interviews where they do background checks (motor vehicle, credit criminal) the same should be done for people running for office on any level

Posted by: cedarhillresident | May 11, 2009 4:02 PM

hmm... I am disappointed! This is my BIGGEST pet peeve. Not much more to say.

Posted by: T | May 11, 2009 4:03 PM

Shabbazz, instead of being concerned about the source of the story should you be more concerned that it is true? Shouldn't there be concern regarding Mr. Paca's responsibility as a parent his conduct as a citizen, and what about his character? Is this someone you want in office representing the people? This situation did not happen due to the economy or over night, this has been occurring for over a period of time. ...

Posted by: T | May 11, 2009 4:07 PM

I agree with BEBE1222, background checks SHOULD be conducted so problems like this do not arise.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | May 11, 2009 4:26 PM

Just an added side note..... this goes to show how SUCKY Conn. child support system is my ex owes 77,000.

Posted by: Rob | May 11, 2009 4:37 PM

Marcus and Greg you do not stand alone on this. Financial attributions are only a small part of "child support". I am a dedicated father and try to do as much as I can (if my child's mother lets me, as she is the custodial parent). Although the system was created for good reasons and alleviate the amount of deadbeats, alot of good fathers fall beneath the radar. I was arrested for back child support two times and the third was merely me turning myself in on the date of delibrations to try to once again plead and explain to the judge it was because I just didn't have the money and laid off at the time. Its a tough situation and Hank you're right, as everyone has been telling me...his ass is in trouble...with an unjust system!

Posted by: Hubinger | May 11, 2009 5:00 PM

To my undersanding, an Alderman is a representative for the COMMUNITY. No one says you can't be an average guy, who made average mistakes. Paca truly cares for our community, I see him walking the streets of the 24th daily introducing himself and asking what issues are important. Thats the type of Alderman I want and will do all I can to elect.

Posted by: The Trix Rabbit | May 11, 2009 7:17 PM

Marcus is obviously not trying to skimp on these payments. This is not a case of a delinquent father leaving a single mother with the reins--Marcus is making payments, he just doesn't have the money to pay off all the debt that is owed. Does this have anything to do with his advocacy on neighborhood issues, or his qualifications as an alderman? The fact remains that in Ward 24, there is a situation in which the alderwoman has done nothing substantial in two decades (even the NHI's cutting investigative journalism was only able to turn up a tree-planting event planned by the Greer family as a recent accomplishment by McCormack), and Marcus is trying to fix it. In this case, presented with a troubling personal issue by a media barrage, Marcus was honest and open about his history and the way he has been dealing with this issue.

Isn't that a quality you would want in your alderman? Everyone has personal problems in life, and Marcus has been frank and straightforward about his. He's got my vote.

Posted by: Anon | May 11, 2009 7:19 PM

Listen, I feel for Marcus. He's in a tough spot. But you have to remember he put himself there. He's a deadbeat Dad who had two kids with two different mothers and is now making excuses for not fulfilling his responsibility. He wasn't aware he had a daughter until she was 3 years-old? It's very sad, but this does reflect on Marcus' character and judgment. He needs to take responsibility for his actions and clean up his own house before seeking the opportunity to oversee a city budget and represent a whole ward.

Posted by: Divorced, Two Children, No Child Support | May 11, 2009 9:00 PM

Yep, that's me. Everyday is a struggle. Let me give you my take on this story. It says hes been behind for years on child support. How come. If he was earning $100,000 a year as an executive. $20,000 is peanuts to him. He was just running around enjoying his money. Didn't give none to his kids. It took him 3 years to find out he had a daughter. That sounds like how long the paternity suit took for the mother to get him to own up to his responsibilities. Lets hear the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth on this one.

Posted by: Stop The Maddness | May 11, 2009 9:47 PM

Mr. Greg Smith you can be assured struggling single mothers are in fact, "more than likely using child support payments to address their childrens' needs". You speak of single fathers giving up large portions of their pay as if they are doing something above and beyond being an accountable father and taking care of their partial responsibility. What do you think these single mothers are sacraficing when they are the primary care givers for these children, imagine their contributions. Please check yourself before making such comments. Most mothers don't hesitate to put their children first before their own needs.
Has anyone even bothered to question if Mr. Paca is still doing consultant work as he was quoted in the article; how come he has not bothered to make payments to help contribute towards his children regardless if he is no longer being garnished?

Posted by: Stop The Maddness | May 11, 2009 10:01 PM

The Trix Rabbit you are making poor excuses, and that is all they are, excuses. Mr. Paca was not straight forward about anything, and I don't want those types of characteristics in my Ward Alderman.

It sounds like Divorced, Two Children, No Child Support knows exactly how the system works and her account sounds very accurate!

Posted by: Single Mom | May 11, 2009 10:16 PM

It's very easy for the non-custodial parent to "make suggestions" on how much they should pay where the custodial parent does not have that choice. The mothers are the ones who have to "make it happen" regardless of their job situation. If your child needs to eat, work at McDonalds. Do what u have to do like those mothers probably do everyday. How can u help an entire community, when you can't even take care of your own household. And if he was so forthcoming, why didn't he tell us since he is always "in the community". Two baby mothers to me shows a pattern of irresponsibility. That is not a becoming trait for any public official.

Posted by: choose your words wisely | May 11, 2009 11:50 PM

WOW!! Matthew chapter 7 verses 1-3 says "Do not judge others, and you will not be judged.(2) For you will be treated as you treat others. The standard you use in judging is the standard by which you will be judged.(3) And why worry about a speck in your friend's eye when you have a log in your own?"

Know that all is in God's hands. If God has called Marcus Paca to be alderman for Ward 24 it will be, and no negativity spoken against him will affect the outcome. I encourage both parties to run fair campaigns.
Blessings

Posted by: yale_student | May 12, 2009 12:01 AM

I've noticed a troubling pattern in NHI articles where changes are made to articles after they are published but are not noted. For example, the Susie Voigt quote in this article was NOT there when I read it this afternoon, but appeared without any explanation when checking this evening. Other times we'll see an "Ed's Note" of a change in the comments section responding to someone that a change had been made, but this is not actually standard protocol on blogs, online news outlets etc these days (you shouldn't have to read comments to know changes are made). NHI should start noting any non-minor changes made after the original publication time in the body of the article itself. With things like new quotes or new information, it seems important for some explanation to be offered as well.

[Ed: Thanks for your note. The only change that was made to the article was the addition of Susie Voigt's comment at the end. The word "updated" at the top of the article was added to reflect that change.]

Posted by: Family Values | May 12, 2009 7:44 AM

Looks to me like this man has deserted his children if he's in CT and their in Virginia and New Jersey. Not the type of man I'd vote for.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | May 12, 2009 8:31 AM

First Yale student...Paul always puts Updated when he change an article and he did just that with this one.

OK now we are using the bible to justify not paying child support?? WTF 20,000 means that child support was not paid for years people!!! I love Marcus to he appares to be a fine young an and I was the first to support him. But we must remember this is about two children that have had to go without because he was not abiding by a COURT ORDER! I ask one question did he at the least send what he could every week even $20.00 or did he not send anything at all. If he was not able to afford it he could have the order mortified by the courts to be at a low payment according to his income. There is no excuse not BIBLE quote that can excuse the NEGLECT of him children! HMMMMM
So he states he has be making the effort...for how long?? is it weekly or is it just his tax refund being garnished. Or is it just when the courts come after him. These are the things I would like to see answered. And those who say it does not matter....well it mattered to those children and it shows that the court order did not matter.

Posted by: toomanytaxes | May 12, 2009 10:07 AM

My concern is about character. If you owe money for kids, why not be putting all this effort into getting a job that pays money rather than running for alderman? If he had the right kind of character, he would be doing whatever - from delivering pizzas, shoveling snow, raking leaves etc... anything to bring in the money. He rather wear suits and have people vote him into office. That says more about his ego and need for attention than to be a real man and get the job done. I am tired of ego driven politicians that care more about the attention then getting the job done. How long until he gets a job in the City from King John and Queen Suzzie???

Posted by: Chet | May 12, 2009 10:10 AM

In response to..."Single father? How do you figure? One kid is in Jersey, the other is in Virginia. How often does he see these kids he's not supporting? Those kids have single MOTHERS and a deadbeat dad."
I'm not trying to insult any single mother out there doing their best to provide for their children, but I think your own past experiences seem to be fueling the ignorance in your response. Can it be possible that a struggling father behind on some payments is still very involved in his childrens' life? Do you know for sure he's not involved? One thing that aggrevates me about our society is we see money as the only sign of support and love when it comes to single parents. Anyway,let's not make any assumtions. Again, let's focus on Paca's ability to perform his duties as the alderman for ward 24. Enough nonsense.

-Chet

Posted by: Choose Your words wisely | May 12, 2009 10:18 AM

We don't know the whole story. Many of us are basing our comments off of what other peope said. I believe Paca gave a clear response/justifiable answer.

Posted by: Greg Smith | May 12, 2009 10:39 AM

To stop the Madness: I am not insinuating the non custodial not pay their obligations, however, if you take everything away from the non-custodial which in most cases is the father, where is the pride he feels when he cant do for his children outside of the payments because there is nothing left after he pay his bills and responsibilities. I believe inspite of the support a man should devote time to his children as well. I am just saying that a lot of times when you are paying faithfully and devoting time to your children, there are no incentives given back to that father to continue. How many times do you tell your child no i cant do it because i dont have the money. You guys have to realize that the monetary portion of child support is more than what the courts order, because when you have those children with you, they want things that cost, for example, if you have boys and they play sports, you have to purchase the equipment they need, if they want to take in a movie you have to provide the money for that ticket, and in most cases after child support your money is so tight it is nearly impossible to do so. By the way when your pay increase depending on the mother, they can increase your support which keeps you in the hole. So after years of going without and feeling less than a man because you can no longer provide for yourself let a lone your children, except for the GRACE OF GOD you would give up all together. By the way I have paid faithfully and do not have arrearage and never short. Has that been easy to accomplish "NO". I do not see Marcus as a deadbeat, I see Marcus as a young man with a great heart and other personal life issues probably contributed to him being in this support situation. I do not see him as a young man running from his responsibilities to his children.

Posted by: regjoeschmo | May 12, 2009 10:53 AM

The facts speak for themselves. He has been paying the support, but he started out with an arrearrage to begin with. This to me proves he is just an average person who knows what it is like to be an average citizen.....(something lacking in the majority of politics). The facts also stand to prove that the arears are going down in time. To claim that just being arrested for this shows his "character" is to ignore the fact that it is unconstitutional to begin with to arrest people for debts.....

Posted by: BEBE | May 12, 2009 11:02 AM

I have a pet peeve.... the Mayor and the democratic party are supporting him says a lot....again they want the YES VOTES... Paca will be a yes vote for the Mayor and the party..it's been going on for years......

Posted by: Detest Hypocrisy | May 12, 2009 11:25 AM

Paca said his troubles started in 2001, "When [her mother] finally called me and said, 'Marcus, you have a daughter,' she was already 3 years old. They put me in arrears for thousands of dollars on day one. It's been hard to catch up."

Why did it take the mother 3 years to notify him? Did she know who her child's father was? If we talk about equity, we need to mean it. She did not tell him he had a child; why is he having to pay from birth? Being 3 years behind is virtually impossible to catch up. ... How is it that the mother has no responsibility in this? We have gone from the ridiculous to the OUTRAGEOUS!

...

"The facts of my situation are serious," he wrote. He had just started a new $40,000 job with a company called One Communications. That came out to "a little over $1,500 every two weeks, gross, probably a little over $1100, net." Meanwhile, his two court-ordered biweekly child support payments totaled $911. Does this make any sense to any of you who are making judgements?

It is incredible how when we have a political AXE TO GRIND we can be so stupid and make such shoot-from-the-hip comments that make no sense. Is this man capable of being a good representative? Can he contribute positively to the community he will represent? Does he understand the issues we care about?

What is the "real agenda" here? If it is to destroy Paca and re-elect McCormack, clearly it is working. There is nothing honorable about that; it is just the same DIRTY politics as usual. If the important thing is to take a close look at who is most competent to represent the community then let us put the issues of concern on the table and have a series of debates that ask each candidate to address the issues and offer tangible solutions for the community.

As to the bible-thumbing hypocrites who are quoting scriptures, if all the little girls had the support and the good sense to tell the real stories about some of you, there would not be enough space to write about it.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | May 12, 2009 11:36 AM

Please Stop

It is not that easy with some fathers. As stated my ex owes 77.000. Contempt orders, passport holds, warrants, liens, garnishments all in play. Mine is a Bi-state enforcement too this is not as easy as same state. I know of many women in the same boat. Then state enforcement is a nightmare in this state to have to prosses a bi-state is next to impossible. The VT workers told me that CT is by far the worse to work with. Grant it be my ex is a loser and always works under the table but right now the VT worker (despite a letter from CT enforcement telling them not to work with me personally that I have to talk to CT only yes people CT enforcement ordered them not to work with me!! ) and the last judge felt that I was one of the worse enforcement records they had ever seen and are at this time putting the clamps on my ex... in two more weeks I have another court date for contempt. This is my passion. DEADBEAT is a DEADBEAT!!!! makes you sick that anyone one would make lame excuses for them!! Because I did not get support I worked 2 to 3 jobs to support my kids! Why can't a father work 2 to 3 jobs to pay there support?????? DON"T GET ME GOING!! :) sorry venting.

Posted by: Please Stop | May 12, 2009 12:05 PM

CEDARHILLRESIDENT, Good luck in court! Exactly, these father's should struggle to do what is right by their children just as much as these mothers have to. I believe mothers do it instinctively while some fathers need court intervention to act right!

Posted by: Pendelton St. | May 12, 2009 12:21 PM

CEDARHILL--You mention you were the first to support Paca. I have been living in the ward for 8 years now and Paca has earned my support. Have you contacted him to talk to him yet? If not, you should because I did. (FYI-he responds promptly to PACA4ALDERMAN AT gmail.com) He was upfront and didn't mind speaking to me. You seem to have been through and going through alot with you ex and his story may be healing for you. So that you aren't cold towards all men who owe child support. NOW DON'T get me wrong, a deadbeat is a deadbeat, but there are father's doing all they can just really in difficult situations. There are men who try to outsmart the system and avoid their parental responsibilities, but Paca isn't one of them. Lets do the math according to the article $1100- $911 =189*2(because bi-weekly)=$378 Not much to survive on. I raise 3 children and $455(give or take) would be more than enough to "financially" support ONE child even if I had them fulltime or even half the time. Or how about if arrears were continously being applied after several pleas to court for reduction. Food for thought!

Posted by: City Hall Watch | May 12, 2009 4:57 PM

How can Marcus Paca represent he'll do right by taxpayers and voters if he can't do right by his own family? That's the only question I have. Family responsibilities don't end with a post coital shower. The African-American community has been decimated by absentee fathers who leave crying babies behind and mothers fighting to raise their kids with practically no money. As a result, you have a high percentage of single parent homes, poverty and problems. I don't know Paca's reason for moving state to state, but I do know this is a favorite tactic of those trying to avoid child support in addition to changing jobs. Fact is, Paca was some $20K in arrears on his 10-year-old child and only a couple of thousand dollars behind on his 3 year old. It's clear he wasn't doing right by her for a long time.

Paca:
Like your race baiting comments of a prior article, I'm deeply troubled by yet another statement denying responsibility. "I have nothing to be ashamed of...plenty of average Americans are going through this" and dealing with things that are out of their control. Not true. Most Americans pay child support; most are not arrested for not doing so; and you have everything to be ashamed of in terms of abandoning your family and being dragged into court to enforce payment. And finally, from conception to payment - it has always been in your control. The problem is you haven't exercised it.

As for Susie Voight:
What is warm and responsible about fathering children with whom you have no relationship and for whom you shirk responsibility for paying? You should raise the bar on your thinking. It's abysmally low.

Posted by: Arnetta | May 12, 2009 6:29 PM

Although Child Support is ultimately part of his responsibility, one of which I don't see him trying to disregard based on the letter he submitted, this should at least be handled fairly. The payments should be adjusted based on his earnings, and if his earnings have decreased, so should the payment amounts until he can pay more. Locking people up who are willing to pay a little less, but consistently does not make sense, I don't care how you slice it.

Thanks
Arnetta

Posted by: kris | May 12, 2009 8:48 PM

He shouldn't be wasting time running for alderman...he should be looking for anther job to support his kids.He cries poor but what would he do if the mothers came to new haven and gave him full custody...he would be crying for support payments.He will fit right in with the others ... in new haven politics.

Posted by: Joemaflage | May 12, 2009 9:25 PM

It is time this issue comes to the front of politics. We need to get equal protection of law in the family courts. The courts turn parents into ATM's for federal incentive funds. Being a parent has nothing to do with a court ordered child support order but actual time. Get into office then change the laws to let parents be parents. www.myspace.com/familyrights

Posted by: Speak The Truth! | May 12, 2009 10:40 PM

Also, Mr. Eden only the judge can grant bench warrants based on the documented evidence, testimony, and history of non-compliance, not solely based on the debt. Probation and child support enforcement workers can seek warrants all day long but they hold no weight in this decision, only the judge.

Posted by: True Story | May 13, 2009 8:07 AM

Is NHI- the new page six? Why is the writer of the article- pushing dirt around.

This is called a hit piece and the writer of the article should have not written it- because - it has nothing to do- with being an alderman.

Being an alderman is not all that- you are one of 30 -most are in the mayors pocket- and the ones that dont do what they are told are blocked out of any real policy.

As Alderman- The city will give you $2,000, a biz card, a laptop and a hard wooden chair to sit. Maybe, Yale will give you some free tickets to sporting events.

While you are at the games- dont be shocked if you cannot watch the game- because some guy will talk your ear off- about Yale and what a good job they are doing for the city.

I was not going to vote for this guy because- he is supported by city hall which means he will be beholding to the mayor.- who is paid more then all 30 alderpeople combined.

Now I will vote for him because this is a shameful attack.

Vetting? If he were running for president or congress but a low level jonny waterboy (alderman) position job come on!

This the reason- good people dont run for public office.

Posted by: Heightz | May 13, 2009 8:50 AM

True Story:

Before you begin to swing acquisitions that Liz or others in her campaign had anything to do what's so ever with this situation being leaked you should get your FACTS straight.

There is no evidence to determine that she is behind this and that is a FACT. She actually instead of "attacking" said she had "no comment and was focusing on her campaign" which I think is taking the high road...

Posted by: cedarhillresident | May 13, 2009 9:56 AM

Ok lets look back a year or two ago....Alderman King was forced to step down because he owed a couple 1000 in taxes and got in a fight with a woman over a chicken wing. So the question is, is not paying child support (breaking a COURT order) for several years equal to or worse than Kings crimes??

Posted by: True Story | May 13, 2009 10:34 AM

HEIGHTZ- I never said Liz- had anything to do with this hit piece. I have met her in the past and she is very kind. I said I will vote for this guy because of this article. I will be holding my nose while doing it.

Currently- our local government is broken- John DeStefano has complete control of both branches of government.

The whole board of Alderman is a shame- because- the policy is always laid out by the mayor and his overpaid top staff members- then forced down the throats of alderman.

If the Alderman- play ball- the city will give you some sidewalks and/or a few dollars for a pet project in their ward. Or maybe a job with the board of ed or some other quasi city funded group..

If they do not play ball- the DeStefano machine will role into your ward- and spend$ $5,000 or $10,000 to run you out of town.

I think the alderman salary is a joke- because-it is almost a volunteer position- if you are looking to get $$$$$$$$ or power- this is not the spot for you.

However, if you want a title, a biz card, a laptop and $2,000. Oh - one catch- can you vote to give the mayor a raise or funding some policy that does not make sense in this era or the next.

(sidebar)
However, that UI showdown or meltdown was a little funny and the mayor does get props for that. BUT!

When was DeStefano's last primary -like 2003? Come on, New Haven? I would vote for a guy or woman wearing a sponge bob suit before- i would waste my gas and time to vote for Mr. Mayor for Life.

To the victor goes the spoils and boy is John DeStefano spoiled- at one time he had two city paid for cars LIC PLATE 101NH AND 1 NH- two sweet rides, a hug raise and a $3,000 closet to hang one overpriced coat.

There is my two cents.

Posted by: heightz | May 13, 2009 11:16 AM

True Story:

So your sick of "King John" of controling both branches of government however you support a candidate who will be supported by the mayor and who was appointed to the development commission by the mayor OOOOOOK

Posted by: dee | May 13, 2009 11:49 AM

True Story, you are all OVER the place. If your goal is to stop DeStefano, or at least keep him in check, why would you vote for this Paca guy, who is clearly Johnny's chosen boy? Why would you vote against an Alderwoman Johnny is trying to defeat because she's not a reliable vote for him? All because of one news article that is actually, by the subject's own admission, TRUE?

And one other thing. How can this be a "hit piece" when, before publishing the article, the Independent (1) contacted Paca, (2) gave him an opportunity to respond, and (3) published his response? That's the very definition of a story that is NOT a hit piece! Unless you consider publishing any troubling news about any politician to be a "hit piece," that is. You don't think voters in your ward have a right to know that one of their candidates is severely behind in child support payments? I think it's relevant; I'm stunned people don't.

Posted by: Vegetable Peace | May 13, 2009 12:55 PM

CedarHillResident:

Former Alderman King did not go ballistic over a chicken wing. He lost it over a hot dog.

God is in the details, though perhaps these details are an exception. Still, facts are facts.

Posted by: heightz | May 13, 2009 2:24 PM

True Story:

Not to beat a head horse but how do you think Paca was appointed to the development commission? Because he continues to critize the mayor and his policies? Give me a break. First the commission and now alderman sounds like a clear plan to me. Lets get this kid active in some shape or form in government hense the commission then have him register voters and work with a presidental campaign which he did and NOW we'll support him for ALDERMAN. Now thats a 'TRUE STORY".

Posted by: Friend | May 13, 2009 3:06 PM

Make your vote about the changes YOU see/ want to see in your neighborhood and the person who will best respresent your intrests in your community. Not by the meager attempts to destroy the character of a good man and community leader we need.

I know Paca personally and I feel there are alot of assumptions are being made without considering that facts. Paca has nothing but good intentions for ward 24 and the City of New Haven. All this negativity is exactly what this "uncovered information" was intended to do. To generate a negative reaction from the people and ultimately divert you from the real issues. THIS IS A PERSONAL ATTACK and no longer about politics.

FACTS: Paca went to college in VA were he met the VA child's mother. Like he said he really didn't know about the child until she was 3. It was because the child's mother did not inform him(he was not being chased down for 3 years, he just didn't know the child existed) Can you imagine? He lived in NJ because he accepted a postion in NJ and moved from New Haven. He lived and worked in NJ and took care of NJ child's mother and child until they broke up and was assesed for child support and daycare. As for him being behind on the child support he started off with 3 years of debt on the VA child which he still tried to pay. He then had(the now 3 yr old) more expenses generated to care for a newborn and the child's mother. He recently fell behind on the NJ support due to loss of job. Even though he lost his job he still paid the little he could and was active in child's life. He then went through salary reductions due to change of jobs/layoffs and battled/battling courts for reductions for even till today.

Arrested for being laid off and not being able to pay through the courts! Does driving to NJ every other week (with the little $ he had)to get the child and keeping the child for a week. Then driving the child back to NJ and having wages being garnished and not adjusted to his lesser income because of the "deaf ears" of the court system= a dead beat?!? Does Paca get child support for having the child and providing daycare in CT half the time NO!

PACA is a wonderful father and has never defaulted on his responsibilities to care for his family. He battles (I use this word because some mothers although its hard for me to fathom try to keep the kids away from their fathers out of spite) consistently to maintain relationships with his children.

Posted by: INSIDER | May 13, 2009 3:50 PM

Heightz--Liz recommended Paca for the development commission. The ordinance states that all are "appointed by the Mayor" to commisions. In fact its Liz's board that swears commisioners in. You're such a skeptist without facts. JD's machine isn't as oiled as you think.

Posted by: True Story | May 13, 2009 4:07 PM

Dee- You are correct- that I am little all over the place.(sorry) First, I did think DeStefano meltdown or showdown with the UI was funny! The UI moving to Orange is not funny. So I gave the mayor props for speaking out on this important issue.

However, I would never vote for the mayor- and would knock on a thousand doors to give him the boot.

Now why would I vote for a man that DeStefano supports?

1. I did not like the story and thought to myself- it was wrong so I felt sorry for him.

2. I know Paca will most likely be a Johnny waterboy- so I said I would hold my nose while voting for him.

If I were Paca- I would focus on getting a paying job - instead of using his talent to help DeStefano and his buddies keep their high salaries.

DeStefano has not a good idea - in years. It is sad to see the mayor these days- just milking the clock and running the city on a ad hoc basis.

One day -the city will get new leadership and we can let the people of each ward pick thier own Alderman.

Posted by: Bulldog | May 13, 2009 9:22 PM

I think this story was planted by the Mayor to deflect attention from his tantrum at the UI offices last week. A brilliant piece of politicking.

Posted by: Alan Felder | May 13, 2009 11:57 PM

How much does the City of New Haven owes our children?

Posted by: single mom | May 14, 2009 2:18 PM

Did I note a bible reference for not supporting your children? What about the reference to fornication and a man that does not work should not eat? Please don't pick throught the Bible to support your cause. This is about right and wrong? Several people are making the argument that raising a child takes more than money which is true but let's keep it real. We live in a capitalistic society where the basics of life such as food clothing and daycare take money! So does the mother say hey I'm laid off sorry no food this week? No. 300 is pennies when it comes to raising a child. That is daycare for a week in some places. Stop making excuses and take responsibility. From the photos Mr. Paca's wardrobe isn't lacking.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | May 14, 2009 2:40 PM

I WANTS ALL OFF YOU TO WATCH THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=247hX4qnZlA&feature=related

Posted by: cedarhillresident | May 14, 2009 2:46 PM

PS I just want you to know that this video brought me to tears! I was the truth of all us mothers trying to raise our children with a deadbeat dad in the picture (or not).
Paul I would love to see this video posted into the sideline. People just don't understand what deadbeat fathers are really doing...untill it happens to them and their children!

Posted by: Greg Smith | May 14, 2009 4:04 PM

For all of you who are quick to call men dead beat dads. Imagine through court order that you have to pay child support. Imagine paying that child support and now falling short of your ability to pay your own bills to keep a roof over you head, because you are paying child support. I am not saying you should not pay, but imagine getting your pay check. Out comes taxes, both state and federal, health and then you give the childs mother her child support. Then you decide to get a second job as some of you have suggested only to be dragged back to court to have the support amended because now you are making more money therefore you should be paying more. The second job was to help make up the amount you pay out in support so that you can keep your apartment so the kids have a place to sleep while they are with you. Imagine not being able to claim your children on your taxes for all the years you pay your support faithfully. Imagine on top of the support you pay, the personal time you spend with your children, and while they are visiting with you, you have to feed them, give them the extra things they ask for, movies, sneakers, clothes for school, haircuts or hair appointments. How much money do you think you will have after paying support, then spending out more money when the children are with you. AFTER ALL OF THAT, YOU STILL GET NO INCENTIVE FOR GOING OVER AND ABOVE THE COURT ORDERED SUPPORT. Maybe and I do not condone this you can see why so many men give up. It has nothing to do with loving their children it has more to do with being stripped of their pride in not being able to do for their kids like they would desire because of the financial shortfall experienced not from the court ordered support, but the tons of money you spend afterwards to make sure your child visit with you is a delightful one. Until you have walked in those shoes you can only guesstimate. Marcus keep your head up you are not alone in this battle of a broken system we have here in America. AGAIN REWARD THE FATHERS WHO ARE LOYAL, GIVE US AN INCENTIVE TO AVOID GIVING UP AND BECOMING what some are calling DEADBEATS.

Posted by: strangerthanfiction | May 14, 2009 10:04 PM

Paca needs to focus on catching up on his support and taking care of his 2 kids. Those 2 kids have only one father. The most important contribution he can make to the community is to step up and get the job done right with them. When he's struggling with that and trying to get on top of that very difficult situation it's hard to understand why he would even consider taking on the job of alderman.

Posted by: Friend | May 15, 2009 10:47 AM

Although I hate to entertain this dismal scrutiny, I must let everyone know who my friend is. Your intent to tarnish the character of Paca has come to an end. All reasonable citizens know that a life situation (ie. child support arrears) has nothing and should have nothing to do with our ability to be active in our community. Being a father is being a positive attribution to society and primarily being a role model. His children will be proud to know that their father is not only making their lives better, but contributing to society and creating a better place for them to live. What would this world be if we all were trapped in the bubble of our own dilemmas and not focusing on the greater good of society.

I commend/endorse my friend Marcus Paca for his continued efforts to be better and do better. Being a pioneer to create the changes he wants to see where he lives. Most importantly for being a father who has not given up on his children and striving daily to be the positive influence in his children and all children lives.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | May 15, 2009 1:58 PM

OMG again IT IS AGAINST THE LAW NOT TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT!!!! The amount you pay is based on your income and the other parent's income. If your income changes you can have the amount mortified every 6 months!
Every week that you do not pay is a week that you have broken the law. And at the least send something! When you don't even send a $20 bill that means you are avoiding it. Simple. It has nothing to do with the relationship between the parents it is about the children. The more I think about the fact that our democratic party is supporting him the more angrier I get. Do I want a man that bucked the system and did not pay child support to represent a large number of single mom's that live in new haven!! Hmmm I am angry about this!! Some facts....
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/cs101-1.pdf

I was briefed on Paca situation, It still does not make a difference. Again how long has he been paying since the contempt order?? And when the news dies down will he stop paying again??? I say send him the kids and have him raise them with out child support!! Raising them yourself cost A HELL OF ALOT MORE THAN your childsupport payments are not including the time and love that you need to give. Sorry I am not going to support him his excuse is unacceptable.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | May 15, 2009 2:48 PM

One more thing release your payment history. So we can see what payment where made although I am sure someone already can get copys.

I see the headlines now

DeStefano supports Deadbeat dad....
we trust he will start paying (untill he gets elected)

Posted by: Greg Smith | May 15, 2009 4:17 PM

As much as I try not to comment any further on this issue, Cedarhillresident drag me back in with her comments. You have no idea how hard it is on a father who love his children to pay child support, still maintain a place with his bills needing to be paid and still be involve in his kids life. You made the statement that the custodial parent can go back and modify the payments if the non custodial parent pay increases. Now you tell me what sense does that make, if the father is trying to overcome the payments he make by getting overtime, or getting another job. How can he devote time to his children like he desires to if he has to work 3 jobs just to make ends meet. Who said fathers dont love their children just because they fall behind on child support? There are a million reasons why a father could fall behind on payments. I believe there are more fathers paying than there are this so call dead beat crap. If you want to get rid of the so call dead beats, allow them to deduct the money on their tax return, after all she get the child suppor payments tax free. Why cant the father be given an incentive to pay other than JAIL. If you put him in JAIL then when do he get to spend time with his kids, and has anyone bother to ask why the so call dead beats are dead beats in the first place. It is my understanding the state can take all but $125 dollars of your pay in child support, remember its not just the child support payments, its 1/2 on medical and the father has to help with day care as well. What is he left with? Most times that support is not being use for its intended purposes. I have no problem paying child support but I advocate allowing the father to deduct the payments as an incentive to continue paying and not getting depressed, giving up and running.

Posted by: Edward_H | May 15, 2009 4:52 PM

So far the only way Paca has distinquished himself from Liz McCormack is that he is young , black , inexperienced and a dead beat dad. You can't ride Obama's coat tails into office on the young ,black and inexperienced thing if you piss off the Obama mama's. Better luck next time.

Posted by: Yrral | May 15, 2009 7:35 PM

Friend, the only person that tarnished your friend's character is Mr. Paca himself. Don't blame the facts of public records and the opinions of the community.

Posted by: AI | May 15, 2009 7:40 PM

Friend, being a positive role model for any child involves being responsible first.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | May 16, 2009 7:36 AM

Fact child support is ONLY based on your full time day job any part time job is NOT caculated into the figures.
Fact every state has a chart that child support is based on which is not only based on the fathers income but on the mothers income to.
St, of CT chart is on page 10 but note that this is a basic chart the amount for the father get lower as the mothers income gets higher.
http://www.jud.state.ct.us/Publications/ChildSupport/2005CSguidelines.pdf

St of NJ
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/csguide/app_ixe.pdf

You say you can not support yourself after child support. the real question is how does a women who in general makes less money then her male counterparts, is suppose to support the child that 2 people created on her check alone?? But boo hoo screw the kid you matter much more... MAN UP!! You expect people to feel sorry for a full grew man that cry poor ME ME ME and does not care if his child has clothes on his back pay for there food, sports, day care ect.. One FUCKED up view!! Many men that do not pay really has nothing to do with the kid in general, those peanuts sized brain men don't pay because they simply do not want the mother to get the money. They can not separt the needs of the child for there relationship with the mother.
And I am still pissed at the democratic's in my city for supporting this... why he is in court right now, which mean that he just started to fix this....

One bravo to the men that do pay and care about the children the put on this earth. BRAVO to you guys!

Posted by: cedarhillresident | May 16, 2009 9:29 AM

sorry posted wrong link this is NJ child support chart
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/csguide/app9f.pdf

As far as virgina's not sure if the mother of that child is cutting all ties

Posted by: Greg Smith | May 16, 2009 10:06 AM

cedarhill with all do respect you again are missing the point.There are untold stories of men who have faithfully paid their support and when they got higher paying jobs were dragged back to court to pay more support. Reality is when this occurs they find jobs that pay under the table. This is not an attempt to avoid paying, but an attempt to live after paying. AGAIN, the issue is not paying, the ISSUE is surviving so you can continue to be there for your kids and not just financially. AGAIN this money given to the non custodial parent is tax free so AGAIN allow the fathers to deduct the payments. AGAIN its not just the court order amount, its also the amount he spends when the kids need outside of the COURT ORDERED PAYMENTS. MY POINT IS how do you care for your child as a father if when you pay, and have to spend time with your kids, where you take them, what do you do with them, if after your bills you have nothing left. Maybe you are living in another society but in this society KIDS want to do things, have things, and that equates to MONEY. I am not advocating not paying, I AM ADVOCATING once the support amoung is determined by the court, allow the father to earn more to over come what he gives out, so that he can provide other things for his kids, that no doubt may not be provided otherwise.

Posted by: Delores (Dee) Marshall | May 16, 2009 11:59 AM

AS long as King John runs the City of New Haven
and the Bd. of Education the city will always be in a hot mess...just look at the 32 million education stimulus he now has his hands on to destroy the educational system even more! We need
more young people to become involved. Marcus is a
product of New Haven and part of a younger generation who deserve a chance...just as the late
Deli to gave the ground work for Johnny Boy Mayor!
With this education reform is it a platform for some future political position such as Congress woman Rosa's position? Chris Dodds future position. We need new blood in New Haven by any means necessary! JUST LOOK AT THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM!!!!!

Posted by: Bulldog | May 16, 2009 7:56 PM

Greg Smith.

To me you sound like a man trying to avoid his responsibilities. If you earn more the court makes you pay more for your kids so they share your increased prosperity. If you were the responsible parent it would work in reverse if the mother earnt more.

The big problem in society today is materialism, where all that's important is consuming more and more.

Posted by: The Trix Rabbit | May 16, 2009 10:48 PM

Greg is trying to make the point that its not always as simple as some people are portraying it to be. Does anyone in this discussion think that ISNT true? Are you serious? What does this have to do with aldermanic experience, or Obama?
Besides, aren't all first-time aldermanic candidates inexperienced? Are you so happy with the experience that Liz McCormack has? She hasn't used her extensive experience to do much for her neighborhood, ever.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | May 17, 2009 11:35 AM

Greg I understood what you were saying but it is only relevant if you have custody of your kid 15 days out of the month. Waking up 15 day taking the kid to school, feed him, clothing him, being there for him. Not for the every other weekend and one wed a week is not a financial burden! Sound to me you are trying to justify your lack of being a man to your child. It is not me you are trying to convince it is yourself. Dude man up and pay your support, if you except the fact maybe you can take the energy of your anger and put it into your kid.

Trix still trying to figure out which city rep you are. Yes it is about an aldermatic candidate. Yes all new alderman are start of without experence. But what also is need is MORAL VALUES! The question at hand is does Paca have the MORAL VALUE to fight for single mothers in his ward does he have the MORAL VALUES to fight for all the adult voters in his ward rasied by women that did not get support for there fathers.... you would be suprised at how may people that is.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | May 17, 2009 11:55 AM

Just a few more facts

Of those who are supposed to receive spousal support, 49 percent are not receiving any of it, fighting to get it, or have completely given up trying to get it.
- www.Divorce360.com, Child Support Poll Results, conducted by GFK Roper Public Affairs and Media, 2007

In the four years from 1996 to 2000, the amount of child support owed in the United States went from $45 billion to $89 billion
-U.S. General Accounting Office, Child Support Enforcement: Clear Guidance Would Help Ensure Access to Information and Use of Wage Withholding by Private Firms, 2002

Almost one-quarter of custodial parents with child support orders receive no payments at all.
-U.S. Census Bureau, Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Their Child Support: 2005, released August 2007

The number of custodial mothers in poverty is 27.7 percent. The percentage of custodial fathers in poverty is 11.1.
-U.S. Census Bureau, Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Their Child Support: 2005, released August 2007

Approximately 75 percent are not receiving all of their court-ordered child support.
- www.Divorce360.com, Child Support Poll Results, conducted by GFK Roper Public Affairs and Media, 2007

And we are saying that this should not be an issue when discussing a mans qualifications to be an elected official?? How is he going to represent the inner citys issues when one of the biggest causes of crime and poverty. What is he going to do ...obstinae from voting on these things!! I am still pissed at the mayor and others for not asking him to step down!! If he wants to run in 2 years that is fine. At that point he will be done with court and will be able to show he has repented and has been paying but untill then MY MAYOR IS BACKING A DEADBEAT! SHAME ON YOU JOHNNY!

Posted by: cedarhillresident | May 17, 2009 2:49 PM

sorry paul can you put the Obama one up and delete the short one!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5it57oqlZeA&feature=related

Posted by: Single Mom | May 17, 2009 4:35 PM

Cedarhillresident I agree with everything that you have said. If you want to complain about child support than try full custody! I'm sure that will save you money right? Greg your statements have been all about your needs, your house. I hate to tell you that when you decide to have children their needs take precident over yours. Finally NEWSFLASH FRIEND- you obviously can't see past your "friendship" enough to recognize the truth. You can't lead a community when the your children may end up being supported by tax dollars because you aren't paying child support. Take off your blinders. The minimum requirement for an office should be no arrests!! What an example for all of our young men!!!

Posted by: Hmmm... | May 18, 2009 3:04 PM

CHR, I understand your anger but I think it is misdirected. Marcus is NOT your ex-husband so please stop taking out your anger on him! In fact, it sounds to me more like your anger is about you and not your children. It DEFINITELY is not about Marcus, his children or his babies' mamas.

I am not attempting to justify his failure to pay, though I do understand how difficult it is when your income changes. If he was the custodial parent and his income changed like it did then he would have access to social services to help care for the kids.

Your kids are grown and gone and though it might have been hard, you did it. You raised them, they saw what you did and how you did it and frankly I bet it makes them better adults.

Now I read your posts and I can almost see the spittle dripping from your lips. I can clearly see the pain you are suffering but the solution is NOT to strike out at someone else.

Posted by: Greg Smith | May 18, 2009 3:11 PM

Cedarhill writes "Greg I understood what you were saying but it is only relevant if you have custody of your kid 15 days out of the month. Waking up 15 day taking the kid to school, feed him, clothing him, being there for him. Not for the every other weekend and one wed a week is not a financial burden! Sound to me you are trying to justify your lack of being a man to your child. It is not me you are trying to convince it is yourself. Dude man up and pay your support, if you except the fact maybe you can take the energy of your anger and put it into your kid.

Ok Cedarhill just so you know, I have paid support for over 11 years. I have never once been late, come up short, and have no arrearage. I cook daily for my kids, even though they do not live with me, I am at every football game during the season, at every baseball game not to mention never missed a practice. They are with me or talk to me via cell phones every day of the week and weekends. The only thing they do not do is sleep over and on they occassions they do that too. I support and chaperone my youngest on school trips, provide rides for them to malls, movies, and anything else they need me for. Oh by the way that include their friends too. I am up 5:30 in the morning 5 days a week to stand at a bus stop with my youngest, and give my oldest a ride to school every morning. When they are sick I sit with them in the hospital until seen by a doctor. I do this not because I love my Children, but because of course I love them, but I do this because I am committed to my Children. I live my live on committment to my children, because I learned a long time ago, that committment does not involve feelings, you see if I went on feelings I would have given up a long time ago. SO Again, reward those fathers who are going over and above. Sign Not a back POCKET DAD BUT A LOVING FATHER, COMMITTED TO HIS CHILDREN.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | May 18, 2009 7:28 PM

hmmm Of course I am angry at the ex but I let go of it a long time ago. I raised my kids. But as a person that is involved in community issues what kind of person would it make me to not say something! Should I have your attidute and say well it is not my problem any more so why fight it?? Come on when I was working 65-70 hour weeks while raiseing my kids I did not have the time to SCREAM HELP!! THE SYSTEM IS FUCKED UP!! THERE IS SOMETHING VERY WRONG HERE. Now my kids are grown but there is a whole new generation of me's out there still not getting help, still being igonered by the system. I think it is my duty to at the least SCREAM for them now that I have the time. The system leaves so many women and children behind. I talked to someone at city hall a few years back about this very thing and he told me to call Cam and see if I can get some laws changed. Which I am working on.But my mayor is supporting a man who went back to court just recently. My quess...and yes it is a guess only because he was running. And as a democrat I find it to be a bit desturbing that my party heads and leaders have not even concidered what an endorcment like this says to women and children in this situation. That our leaders dismissed the plight of these 2 woman and there children and are rewarding him. I personally am a forgiving person. I say step down clean up your mess and once you can show you are paying regualarly then run. What an example that would make...I would even stand by him.
Gary good for you. An I am not saying that it is not hard for dads. My sugestion to you would be document all the times you spend with you kids all the money you spend on them and put in for modification and show them these records. Suprisingly CT is a father friendly state and this type of record is considered when figuring out support amounts. Try it then call me, you will owe me a hug.PS I do know who you are an by alrights you are a good guy. This is not personal. Maybe someday we could work together on somethings. Gary you are a rear one. Let me ask you something out of the 200 plus kids in the out reach program how many of those kids familys get child support?? How many of them have there fathers?? In Newhallville how many of those single mothers are on foodstamps an section 8 because the fathers of there kids are not heling them?? This is a much bigger issue than the dollars. It is about the childrens peace of mind. A man that helped get kids bike must understand this type of issue on some level??? Big hugs!

this is a song my son and his friends (all new haven kids with out dads)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWP2pPksihY

Here is video made by kids in Chicago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYfU_cOJa9M&feature=channel_page

this is so much bigger than the bucks!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQAIbBb1vQs

this is a song my son and his friends (all new haven kids with out dads)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWP2pPksihY

Posted by: Yrral | May 18, 2009 9:59 PM

I personally don't believe that CEDARHILLRESIDENT ever mistaken Mr. Paca for her ex, as she is well aware of who her ex is, nor was she striking out at him.

I do believe she was making EXTREMELY valid points. Mr. Paca has clearly displayed the LACK OF MORAL VALUES to administer leadership to this ward. Would the public ever have found out this information about our "WARM HEARTED CANDIDATE" if the story was not published? I don't think so! We gotta admire Mr. Paca's straight forwardness and honesty, right? Mr. Paca cannot possibly make sound decisions representing the vast majority of single mothers, adults raised by single mothers, and being a positive role model to our youth. Mr. Paca's personal situation could very easily make him bias when it comes to voting on certain issues involving our ward.

I say Mr. Paca might want to direct his energy to obtaining gainful employment for the sake of his children. A man with such pressing responsibilities involving his OWN children, and he chooses to use his energies in this fashion?

Not my idea of a positve male role model or a positive attribute to society.
These type of actions indicates SERIOUSLY QUESTIONABLE MORAL VALUES.

Posted by: Edward_H | May 19, 2009 9:45 AM

Yrral

Not my idea of a positive male role model or a positive attribute to society.

Maybe he can be a role model by going to high schools and telling his story. He can be an example for young men as to what happens when you "hit it and quit it" and to young women who a think smooth talking educated employed man can't be a dead beat dad as well.

Posted by: Yrral | May 19, 2009 10:08 AM

True, I guess that would put his talents to use!

Posted by: Single MOM | May 19, 2009 3:00 PM

I respect you Greg. Thank you for being an example on how not to give up in spite of a difficult fight. Maybe you should run for alderman!!!