Sorry, Big words, but misplaced reasoning and wrong conclusion.
[QUOTE=Who Cares #2]It's a legal principle called equitable estoppel. If you refuse the right to receive payment (technically it's the child's money) then not only would the mom not have to pay, but theoretically the court could order you to make-up any potential difference since you're essentially mishandling the child's right to the money.[/QUOTE]
The child is the one who has the right to the money, even when he turns 18 if not paid he or she can sue to recover.
The wrong of one parent, in not collecting or going after the child support is not imputed to the child and does not bar an action on the child's behalf, whether by the custodial parent, a governmental agency or whomever has a right to reimbursal or collection.
The court would have no reason to order a custodial parent to make-up what the other parent was ordered to pay. Where did you get this lame-brained idea? The judge could only order the payor to pay, either to the custodial parent or the child (if over 18) or any welfare agency that paid to support the child during his minority, for reimbursal.
Furthermore, a custodial parent cannot waive or give up the child's right to support. It is a right vested in the child and can be enforced by anyone who has the parental right to do so, or the child himself after age 18.
The Logic of Child Support Laws...
or lack thereof:
"Their latest escapade concerns Viola Trevino, who discovered she could obtain a child support order against a man without the inconvenience of actually having a child. Steve Barreras was forced to pay $20,000 for a child that, it turns out, never existed. Barreras protested for years and produced documentation that no child could possibly exist, but he was ignored by New Mexico's Child Support Enforcement Division. 'The child support system in this state is horrible,' an Albuquerque woman tells a reporter. 'A woman can walk into their office with a birth certificate and a ‘sob’ story and the man on that birth certificate is hunted down and forced to pay child support.' Yet the agency – which ironically claims to be keeping an eye on other people's parental 'responsibilities' – claims they were not responsible for the shakedown of Barreras, because they were 'merely enforcing child support already ordered by a judge.' No automatic provision requires the return of the fraudulently ordered payments, so to recover his money Barreras must hire more attorneys and sue.
"Though officials try to dismiss such shenanigans as aberrations, they proceed logically from the child support system, which was created by lawyers and feminists not to provide for children but to plunder fathers and transfer their earnings to other grown-ups. In an increasingly typical decision, a Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled in November that a mother could collect full child support from two men for the same child."
See link for the rest of this story: [url]http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/baskerville6.html[/url]