The poster, now 64, divorced her husband (now 62) in 1987 when they had an infant child. From 1987 until 1992, the ex-husband provided no child support, despite the court order. The poster later sought to increase the support amount based on federal minimum wage, but the ex-husband continued to pay nothing and stopped having contact with their daughter after she turned seven in 1993.
Years later, in 2004 when the daughter turned 18, support payments of $64 per week suddenly began being deposited. When the ex-husband called to stop the payments, the poster informed him he was still responsible for the accumulated back support and interest. He responded by quitting his job to avoid the garnishment. Decades later, in 2021, he contacted the poster asking her to forgive over $65,000 in accumulated back support, promising to pay $300 monthly directly if she did so, leading the poster to question her reaction to this request.
AITAH for laughing at my ex when he asked me to forgive his back child support?
As renowned family law expert Sanford L. Rabinowitz states, ‘Child support orders are judgments in favor of the state as well as the child, and these judgments generally do not expire or become uncollectible simply because the obligee parent chooses to forgive them.’ This principle underscores the legal standing of the debt the ex-husband faces.
The ex-husband’s behavior demonstrates a long-standing pattern of avoidance and manipulation regarding financial responsibility. His refusal to work when payments were garnished, and his subsequent attempt to leverage forgiveness of the debt against a minor financial assurance ($300/month), shows a continued prioritization of his own comfort over his past obligations. The poster’s reaction, characterized by laughter, is an understandable emotional response to witnessing a decades-long avoidance strategy finally backfire due to external consequences (the lien affecting his wife’s property).
From a legal and ethical standpoint, the poster is entirely within her rights to refuse forgiveness, especially given the cynical motivation behind the request. However, for the poster’s own peace of mind, acknowledging that the $65,000 is likely uncollectible may be necessary. A constructive path forward would be to firmly state that forgiveness is not an option, but if he wishes to discuss a structured payment plan for a fraction of the debt (perhaps reducing the interest accrual legally), that might be considered, though given his history, maintaining the status quo of non-payment might be the least emotionally taxing choice.
HERE’S HOW REDDIT BLEW UP AFTER HEARING THIS – PEOPLE COULDN’T BELIEVE IT.
The poster is in a position where her ex-husband, who intentionally avoided court-ordered financial responsibilities for decades, is now seeking relief from a significant debt ($65,000+) due to his own actions, specifically because the debt is now affecting his current living situation. The poster feels justified in laughing at his predicament, given his long history of parental abandonment and financial evasion.
The central conflict lies between the poster’s moral satisfaction in holding him accountable for his past failures versus the practical reality that she is unlikely to ever collect the money owed. Should the poster continue to refuse to forgive the debt, even if it remains uncollectible, or should she consider his offer as a way to secure some financial closure, however small, in his later years?
