I'm mad on your behalf!!

In a perfect world... they'd send a task force to go pick her up and throw the book at her. That's about the clearest case of welfare fraud I've ever seen...

What is shocking/surprising to me is that it has gone on for a long time because when she applies, she has to provide a copy of the birth certificate and if your DH is listed on it, they would have enough to pursue child support to at the very least, reimburse the state for the aid paid on their behalf. He may have to prove he's had the kids which will be easier with school and medical records.

I worked in the welfare department and there is so much fraud, they cannot go after all cases. But a case this strong, hopefully your DH will pursue it and nag the DA to press charges. In most cases, I would not want to see one parent have the other parent arrested/prosecuted, but in this case... she hasn't seen the kids, she doesn't support the kids, and she is living off money she gets for the kids she doesn't see or call. I remember the incident regarding school pictures she ordered but refused to pay for... she has been a deadbeat for a long time. But, the number one reason to pursue it... eventually the DA could pursue back support against your DH if they don't go after BM for fraud. Even if he can prove he had the kids, it is a huge inconvenience and will take a lot of time. If they pursue fraud charges against BM, it lends more credibility to DH.

Wow. That is pretty bad.

Ditto everything Ima said.

"the number one reason to pursue it... eventually the DA could pursue back support against your DH if they don't go after BM for fraud."

Yep. This is what happened to my DH. After BM collected cash, medical and food benefits for over 3 years, DH finally got a letter from the state saying what "he" owed.
It had BM listed as the "custodial" parent and for DH's whereabouts, it said unknown. BM's address was listed as her parents' home.

DH has honestly never really pushed the issue that much---he probably would have if he was on the hook for a lot of money but he's not. He pays $277/month with a good portion of that going to the state to pay back a portion of benefits. My understanding from his attorney is that once it's paid off, then BM will get the full $277 but as it stands now, she only gets $100-something of it.

It's really common. The crazy thing is BM is pulling the same scam now with her younger toddler daughter. She collects benefits for her and says she is unmarried and living at home. Surprise surprise.

I would tell your DH to really go after this one, though. Report her and report her consistently. The state might not listen the first, second or even third time he calls--but if he is a squeaky wheel, he might get somewhere. This is a pretty serious thing, considering she doesn't HAVE her kids at all, AND she lives in a different state!

"It had BM listed as the "custodial" parent and for DH's whereabouts, it said unknown. BM's address was listed as her parents' home."

I wanted to clarify that DH and BM split when SS was not quite 1 yr old, and DH had his son 50% of the time right from the get-go, always. Every Tues/Thurs nights and EOW.
It was a bold faced LIE that BM put on the paperwork that she didn't know where he lived, and also untrue that she was the custodial parent.

LH, I am confused -- are you saying that Tues and Thurs nights and EOW is 50/50???

That is 50-50, KK.

BM had him Mon and Wed nights and EOW.

I guess I should clarify when I say nights---I just meant that DH would pick him up at daycare after work. DH and I have just always phrased it that way, whose night is it.

I suppose I should have said DH had him Tues/Thurs and EOW, and BM had him Mon/Wed and EOW.

That's what we do now, but the days are just diff.

We now have him Wed/Thurs and EOW, and BM has him Mon/Tues and EOW.

The state is going after my SC's BM for welfare and medical fraud ... because she was receiving benefits for all 3 even though she only has custody of one .... we only found out because the kids started getting free lunch .... with out us submitting any paperwork.

Thought it was funny mom was picking up all the prescriptions and "paying the co-pays" ... well if you are on state medical there are no co-pays .... imagine her telling the judge she "paid all the co-pays related to the children" ... sure why not when there aren't any of course she will "pay" them. When inhalers were $45 each she didn't pick not one up.

Then went to the pharmacy to get one of the scripts and the pharmacy tech said "does mom know you are picking this up?" well hubby has full custody so maybe you should be asking her the same question. Hubby picks up all scripts now.

Oh yeah Pseudo!BTDT.

BM had SS on the state medical insurance, even though he had been covered since birth on DH's insurance through work. Well, apparently (and I can see why!) the state wants to know if there is any other insurance that should be picking up the cost---BM told them there was none so that the state would be the primary (only) provider listed, all because she didn't want to pay co-pays at the doctor. It was really ridiculous, anyway, because DH had always paid for those kinds of things---but I guess BM just didn't want to ask him, or else wanted to pocket money he gave her.

DH found this out pretty much the same way; he went through Walgreens to get a prescription for SS, and it was free, and he said HUH????? There was a state policy on SS in there system. Sigh.

When they went to court 18 months ago, BM was court-ordered to have SS taken off the state insurance.

Well all of a sudden dh has a change of heart. He says he does not want to send a copy of his custody papers into the state because he does not want to help them pursue his ex. He said they may pursue her on their own, but he does not want to be responsible for her going to jail or something because she does have 3 other children who live with her and do not deserve to loose their mom!!

I feel like she deserves whatever comes her way, she knowingly committed fraud!

Do you think the state will pursue this now that they have been made aware of it, or drop it when they don't receive a copy of the custody order??

Hopefully you will never have to apply for assistance ... or it will be a battle to get you and your son covered because the kids are already covered under another person .... they will count your income hubby's income minus 3 kids ... see what I mean.

Oh I know! We met the state qualifications for reduced lunch...which is like 40 cents per day. For three kids that would be $1.60 per day. Well now that the other three get free lunch we can not put them on the application. We can only count ourselves as a family of 3. So we do not qualify for reduced lunch for my son. Which means while we get the other three free lunches my son has to pay full price of $2.40 per day. That is only an 80 cent difference but that adds up!

Plus I was talking to a friend who is a stay at home mom. Her hubby lost his job for about 4 months last year and they had food stamps. She said for a family of 5 they received about $160 per person per month! When I think of bm and her family of 4 (because I am sure she did not let the state know about bf living with her) receiving benefits for a family of 7 it makes me sick!! That is over $1000 a month in food! Guess bm does not have to read sales flyers or buy items on sale. Heck...she can cook gourmet meals if she wants! For our family of 6 we spend nowhere near that much on food! We even started a vegetable garden last year to help with our fresh veggie cost because they add up!

Whether you ever have to apply for assistance is the LEAST of concerns, I would ask him how he will pay the huge amount of back support that he will be responsible for? Can he afford the attorney he may need? How about defending that he KNEW but did nothing? Will BM defend him and admit what she did when they are garnishing his wages or intercepting his tax returns or labeling him a deadbeat and taking his license and passport? Will BM say "he's the father of my kids, he's had the kids all this time and shouldn't have to pay anything! I'll pay it back." when he is put in the position to defend himself? Will she step up and do anything for him because "he's the father of my children"?

and you will be affected as he has to gather evidence of having the kids... when you are expecting your tax refund and instead get a letter that it's being taken and sent to BM or the state for reimbursement... when YOU are driving him around until he gets his license back... when YOU are supporting the family while he pays his attorney or fights the garnishing of his paycheck.

Of course he doesn't want to put her in jail. I can say that in my experience, very few cases go to jail. I can't say she won't go to jail but what I have seen is that the person committing welfare fraud is cut off... they are made to pay it back and maybe put on probation or told they cannot get welfare. They don't usually want to put parents in jail unless it is so outrageous that public outcry would be for jail. (ie. she's driving a BMW, living a life of luxury and doing so on taxpayer money) Another reason she won't likely go to jail is that if she does go to jail, she won't be able to work and pay them back... and they will be paying for the kids she has custody of while she's in jail. That's not a likely outcome.

But, at the very least, for your husband's sake, they should put a stop to the amount she is getting fraudulently. The longer it goes on, the worse it is when it's discovered. The worse it will be for her and for him. Allowing it to continue will be more for her to pay back and if the amount she has taken fraudulently is really high, that may cause a public outcry to do something to her... especially in this economy. And when they finally track down your DH, they are not going to be nicely asking him to pay support... she may be making it look like he's run off and avoiding his responsibility. It's very likely that there could be an order of support against him already. He might already be labeled a deadbeat!

Here's a quick lesson on service of process: (at least according to CA law... the laws may differ in your state)

[It's possible to serve someone without them knowing. If he lived at an address but never did a change of address (like at his parents or an ex) and mail still gets sent there, even if it's junk mail... the post office will confirm it's a valid address for mail and the process server can legally sub serve him by leaving a copy of the summons with someone that lives at the residence. That person may or may not know him, depending on how long ago he used that address. The papers may get tossed in the trash and the court will make a default judgment against him because they will consider him served and that he just ignored it and didn't show up. Once they have a judgment, they accumulate arrears plus interest until they find him and then they just levy bank accounts, garnish wages, intercept tax refunds and do whatever else they can to collect.] It will be your husband's burden to prove he's had the kids the entire time and fight to get whatever money they take, back.

(Oh yeah... remember how I told you that your name gets cross referenced when skip tracing is done, etc.? Well, if your DH's name is crossed with someone else's name... some creditors will send a bill or demand letter to all the addresses they come up with. Most will get the letter back with "Does not live here" written on it so they know that is NOT a good address. IF someone tosses the bill in the trash or does not return it, the creditor can assume it's a good address and the post office will verify the letter was delivered and not returned so it's a good address and then they can be sub served. I have gotten letters at my house for my exBF's exW that has never lived anywhere near here.

If you can pass him a message from me...

"It's nice of you to care more about the mother of your kids than she cares about what happens to you.... Good luck with that."

Mom2emall, can your kids pack a lunch?

SS can buy or bring his lunch. We already put $$$ on his lunch acct. at school that should last the semester, but we're hoping it will last the year because we'd like for him to take his lunch at least 2-3x a week.

He actually would prefer to pack it everyday---he doesn't like going through the cafeteria line. So maybe that money won't get used at all.

I've found that for him it's much cheaper in the long run to pack his lunch. We go to Sam's and buy granola/cereal bars, yogurts, etc. in bulk. It's a more expensive up-front cost but I really think it saves money in the long run.

Another thing I do is pack a trash-free lunch. I have tons of little cheap plastic tupperware containers and I put food in those. I've found it's cheaper to buy a big bag of chips and put a small serving of them in a plastic container rather than buy the individual-sized bags. Same for applesauce---rather than buying the little individual sized applesauces, I buy the big jars of it at Sam's and then dole some out in a container and stick it in SS's luncbox.

And yes, Ima is totally right!

My DH is stuck paying back a portion of the benefits BM received from the state. It SUCKS. If it weren't for that, I don't think any child support would have been ordered, because they have joint phys. custody.

Thankfully, it's a small amount monthly but STILL.

The same thing is happening now w/her younger DD. She collects benefits on her (food stamps, cash benefits and healthcare) and the state actually has a case opened against her DH, her DD's father. They are MARRIED and obviously live together but the state doesn't know that---so there is a garnishment for the money to come out of his paycheck.

He works for cash a lot, though, so I doubt they're able tot get much out of him. BUT it will catch up at some point, like Ima said, whether it's his tax return, or a settlement he might get or whatever. The state WILL get paid back one way or another.

We could pack lunches, and we did that many times throughout the years. All the children prefer hot lunches and in the winter it is nice to have a warm meal. With me only working part-time we figured if we could qualify for reduced lunch then we should do it. And really even paying the 2.40 per day is cheaper than packing lunches for 4 children.

My dh is convinced the state will not go after him for this mess. He told me that the person he spoke with says the situation does not involve him because he did not fill anything out, only she did.

I feel like he needs to submit copies of those court papers to ensure our safety in this issue. He wrote down the contact info and fax number where he is supposed to send this paperwork. I am seriously thinking about faxing it myself! Why should we take the chance of getting in trouble? I am also going to our states welfare fraud website and doing an annoymous tip about her situation. And also going to the state she lives in's fraud site to report her there in case she is pulling the same scam there. But I don't know if I should. Its a hard decision. But it really burns me to know she could be putting us in jeopardy.

apply anyway mom2 ... let the state/school figure it out ... as to why she is getting food stamps for 3 children who do not live with her.

If 3 who live in your household qualify so does the 4th ...

Psuedo,

The form we got from the school had a not attached saying that I am to only fill out the form for ds. It says that the other 3 have already been approved and can not be counted in our household?? WTF!

well then ask them how ? if mom lives in a different state? how ...... include them anyway and if they say no fight it ... on the back if a fair hearing 1800 number

if your DH ever has to apply for benefits for his children, he will never get it because they are already used all the available benefits (that went to mom).

if your DH still cares about well-being of his X more than you, his children and your child and even himself, then by all means he should let it go. If she is still that important to him, then of course let her get all the benefits she could.

unbelivable. you are taking care of his children, she gets benefits for that but he stands by her side. nice

In addition to what FD and Ima have said, I have to say this makes me highly uncomfortable. Essentially your husband is supporting welfare fraud and saying it is ok to defraud taxpayers. While he may be ok with it, doesnt he and well you have a responsibility to your country and fellow people?

While your husband may be ok with it, I assure you that the many people who are supporting his ex wife through their hard earned money are not.

IMO, he has a moral responsibility to report this.

If me, I would be tempted to fill out app. with entire household information, attach copies of documents showing you have the children and of household income, and submit it.

If they reject app. , I would ask for a "Fair Hearing" with your school's committee. At some point if you continue on with your goal of free/reduced lunch and/or breakfast request the school may face discrimination and have to alert the state themself on the issue.

All states have different laws and processes with different means of 'foodstamps'. In mine, there is no 'stamps' anymore. My state uses a Link Card (rather like a credit card) which is filled by the state and then used at stores like a credit/debit card. This card would not be able to be used in any other state on a routine basis or fraud flags would be waving.

I'm curious, if the SC have been on 'greencard' (medicaid) all along, have there actually been any charges applied to it? Have charges been applied to the husband's insurance as 1st or 2nd?

if my X would never see my DD, never helped with anything and never even called yet received welfare benefits on her pretending she lives with him, I would certainly do something about it. If involved parent does something stupid maybe I would hesitate for the sake of the children, but in case of mom2emall when mom is nonexistant, it is ridiclous to do nothing about it.

but then again men like to avoid confrontations. then since it is your household too and you take care of the children, i would report it to the state, I wouldn't wait for DH's approval. You don't need his approval. She won't go to jail but her benefits would stop.

in fact I think imamommy is right, he is already labeled as deadbeat. It already shows that kids live with her, and dad is not paying anything. of course eventually he can show it to be untrue, but it is going to take awhile. lovehadley's DH was labeled as unknown. nice.

I think if people know about fraud and do nothing especially if they are asked to submit evidence (custody) and they refuse, they can be labeled as accomplice. state will think that BM and DH are in this together collecting benefits, otherwise he would send his custody papers to the state as he was asked. he could get in trouble for this.