|
FathersUnite.org
Education u Legislation
u Civil Protest
u Membership u Fundraising
Home
Resources & Links
Fatherlessness Statistics
Child Support
Legal Resources
Search This Site
Bad Judges List
Evidence |
|
Child Support Guidelines - Support or Extortion? Most judges are breaking the law as they please on child support by denying due process, imputing income only to men, forcing you (men) into jobs they don't want and many other violations of constitutional rights. This is intimidation to force you to effectively become a slave to the state and your ex-wife. All this is hidden under the claim this is in the "best interest of the children". Who could argue with what's best for the children is maximum access to both parents? Most fathers want to support their children in ways other than financially by having them in their home. Child support is effectively a blackmail or extortion system whereby the state takes you children unconstitutionally, and then uses that excuse to charge you extortion fees weekly for the privilege of NOT having your children! You will find here many pages of true stories and reference material.
This page has a listing of all the information on this site on the issue of
child support. Although much is Massachusetts specific, the worst state in
the nation according to many, the bulk of the information outside of actual
child support calculation figures is likely to apply.
Massachusetts Child Support Reference Information From State Child Support Enforcement is WELFARE. It is paid for exclusively out of the Title IV-D of Title 42 USC 655 & 42 USC 658.
3
Minute 50 Second Podcast on the Issue
<http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hh-fam/cps2004.html> Child-Support Payments now 4.6 million - Number of fathers who provide child support. All in all, 84 percent of child-support providers are men, who provide median payments of $3,600 annually. http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/004012.html Information Offered to the Child Support Review Committee: Fathers Being Forced To Pay College Costs is Not Legal Child Support Over 18 Years of Age Child Support or Child Extortion? Child Support adjusted when wife/husband remarry? Child Support During College Child Support Boondoggle Child Support Explained Financial Incentives and Kickbacks For More Child Support: Social Security, Welfare and Child Support Enforcement Fighting Contempt for Non-payment of Child Support Retroactive Child Support Legal? Repeal the Bradley Amendment Child Support Required of Wife Deadbeat Dad Propaganda Campaign
Child Support guidelines would/should meet the following criteria: 1. Child support should only be allowed when a father or mother abandon their child and refuse to take care of them and the parents can not agree among themselves what that should be. It should never be awarded if the parent wants to care for their children for 50% of the time. This is now proven better for children but the courts are still operating of "scientific research" from the 1950's. Giving custody to the other parent (illegally) is no reason to subject a parent to child support. 2. Child support should not create the huge financial incentive it does for the custodial parent to get a free ride on the other parent for 18-23 years. Child support would be capped at some reasonable and necessary level of expenses per child and shared equally by both parents, or in proportion to earnings. When a divorce happens it is ridiculous and unfair to expect the standard of living of two households to remain the same when the same income now supports both. The second parent must work more, as the first parent was likely already working full-time time. The second parent can not be made to work twice as much! 3. Child support should be about the incremental cost of the children, not including the living expenses of the custodial spouse. Child support would take into account the real costs and the percentage of time the children spend with each parent. Child support should NOT be a function of a parents income, but a function of what a reasonable and married parent would actually spend on the children (Massachusetts imply families spend 80% of their take-home pay on their children by charging dad 40% of take-home pay in child extortion.) Taking away a parents right to decide what to spend on their child after divorce denies them a right they have in marriage and creates a class of people that are discriminated against by this artificially created classification. Massachusetts Web site sources: Child Support Enforcement Services Frequently Asked Questions About Child Support Other Child Support Pages: Child support statistics - http://www.fathersforlife.org/CS/usa/child_support_data_us.htm Arguments to make in court and motions: Web site dedicated to Child Support Issues - http://www.supportguidelines.com/main.html Great Resources Page: http://www.supportguidelines.com/resources.html Recent Child Support Cases http://www.supportguidelines.com/articles/news.html Imputed income must be proven by opposing side even when past income has reached this level
L. P. Hollander Company v. William H. Porter, 267 Mass.
378; 166 N.E. 724; 1929 LEGAL PRIMER ON CHILD SUPPORT
QUESTION: What is the maximum amount that they can take out for arrearages in child support under the law?
ANSWER: The answer is provided in 15 USCS § 1673. Although most creditors can only take 25% of your “disposable earnings,” child support is divided into three categories:
1. If you supporting others, no more than 50% of your income. 2. If you are not supporting others, no more than 60% of your “disposable income,” unless arrears are more than 12 weeks, which it can go up to 65% of your “disposable income.”
“Disposable income” certainly includes income only after taxes and social security are removed.
The law is unclear about child support.
15 USCS § 1673 (2005)
The term disposable income is defined in 15 USCS § 1672:
15 USCS § 1672 (2005)
(c) The term "garnishment" means any
legal or equitable procedure through which the earnings of any individual
are required to be withheld for payment of any debt.
One court has interpreted “disposable income” as meaning income after taxes, less one’s support obligation.
“As we construe title III of the Consumer Credit Protection Act (US Code, tit 15, §§ 1671-1677), the maximum amount which may be garnished from the earnings of an individual for any workweek is 25% of his "disposable earnings" (i.e., after-tax earnings [see US Code, tit 15, § 1672, subd [b]), except in the case of an order for support, in which event the maximum is 50% of disposable earnings, and up to 60% where the individual receiving support is a spouse or dependent child (US Code, tit 15, § 1673).” General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Metropolitan Opera Asso., 98 Misc. 2d 307, 308 (N.Y. Misc. 1978)
The court also held:
The above view of the Federal legislation
is espoused by the Secretary of Labor, who is charged with the enforcement
of its provisions (US Code, tit 15, § 1676), and whose interpretation, if
not irrational or unreasonable, is to be accorded great weight ( Matter of
Howard v Wyman, 28 NY2d 434, 438; Brennan v Kroger Co., 513 F2d 961).
Petitioner's contention that payroll deductions
required under a support order should not be included when computing the
percentage reduction of a [*309] debtor's disposable earnings is not an
accurate reading of the language of the statute. HN4The term
"garnishment" is not restricted but includes any legal or equitable
procedure through which the earnings of an individual are required to be
withheld for payment of any debt -- thus encompassing orders of support as
well as ordinary creditor-debtor garnishments (see US Code, tit 15, § 1672,
subd [c]). The cases relied upon by [***5] petitioner (e.g., Costa v
Chevrolet-Tonawanda Div. of Gen. Motors Corp., 53 Misc 2d 252, affd 24 AD2d
732) antedate the passage of title III of the act, and are not controlling.
This court is bound to give precedence to the provisions of the Federal
statute (US Code, tit 15, § 1673, subd [c]), and we decide the case in a
manner which will best further the manifest congressional purpose of
maximizing a debtor's share of his own earnings.
Other courts appear to disagree.
Alimony and child support payments, even if ordered by court, are not "amounts required by law to be withheld" and therefore must be included in debtor's "disposable earnings" within meaning of § 302(b) of the Consumer Credit Protection Act (15 USCS § 1672(b)). First Nat'l Bank v Hasty (1976, ED Mich) 415 F Supp 170, affd without op (1977, CA6 Mich) 573 F2d 1310 and affd without op (1977, CA6 Mich) 573 F2d 1310.
Biweekly wage assignment of $130 for child support previously ordered in dissolution of marriage action is part of wage earner's disposable earnings within meaning of 15 USCS § 1672(b), since amounts withheld pursuant to court order are not "required by law to be withheld," which means deductions for federal, state and local withholding taxes, and social security taxes. Koethe v Johnson (1982, Iowa) 328 NW2d 293. Deadbeat Dad Propaganda Continues Progress is Being Made In Father's Rights Now Events like the one detailed below are still happening where the press and politicians do not understand the real problem is not "deadbeat dads", this is just a symptom. Unfair and illegal orders for child support, which are really "child extortion", because they are five to ten times the actual cost of raising a child are the REAL problem. Fathers should be paying only one half of the actual cost of raising children, unless THEY decide not to do their part and WANT to pay the mother to take more responsibilities, shifting some (not all) of the financial burden. The political establishment is beginning to get the message that things MUST change, but there is a long way to go on the "Shared Parenting" journey. Shared parenting is the only constitutional solution that respects the rights of both fathers and mothers. Politicians seek to cuddle up to the feminist political powerbase that has no male equivalent yet. Times are a changing though. Take action. Join one of these groups and contribute $5 per month - instead of tens of thousands a year extra for up to 23 years! This is an example of what happens to NCPs who -- for whatever reason -- fail to appear in court to defend themselves. This sort of story -- and the actions of these 30 people -- sets the movement back years and simply justifies those in the Democratic Party -- and elsewhere -- who perpetuate the HOAX of the "deadbeat Dad."
Parents Without Rights and Florida Civil Rights Council POB 480089, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33348-0089
URL:
www.ParentsWithoutRights.org and
www.CRCFlorida.org BLOG: http://parentswithoutrights.blogspot.com/
Parents Without Rights sponsors the JAIL 4 Judged: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FloridaJail4Judges/ Parents Without Rights sponsors the CRC's class action suit: www.IndianaCRC.org
Parents
Without Rights is the Florida liaison for the Million Dads March. Please
visit
www.MillionDadsMarch.org
Miguel Martin needs YOUR support for the class action suit he filed in behalf of all non-custodial parents in Florida: www.ParentsBeforeTheCourt.org.
By The Associated Press Odds are most of these people have been financially crushed and devastated by the child support orders they got from courts. Would a dad who was married go to jail for losing their job, or falling behind on financial obligations? - Never-- that would be illegal!! Judges assume any father who is not making their child support payments is purposely "under-employed" and uses intimidation, jail and lack of due process to get money out of dad. This is almost never the case with mothers, showing great sexual discrimination, or invidious gender discrimination. http://www.cse.state.ma.us/reference/CSEEnforcementServ.htmHere, MA admits the transferral of child support to the wider middle class as Lary has enumerated...
Due Process
Provisions
In Gray v.
Commissioner of Revenue, 422 Mass. 666 (1996), a case questioning
whether DOR could seize property of a child support obligor in satisfaction
of child support arrearages where the obligor was repaying the arrearage at
the rate ordered by a probate court judge, the Supreme Judicial Court found
that DOR’s procedures for administrative enforcement passed constitutional
muster. The court rejected the noncustodial parent’s claims both that his
due-process rights were violated and that the seizure and the statute under
which it took place violated article 30 of the Massachusetts Declaration of
Rights, relating to separation of powers. With respect to the separation of
powers claim, the SJC found that the Legislature’s conferring power upon DOR
to levy property was not essential to the probate court’s power, and in fact
it enforced the court’s authority under the order. Nor did the court find
that DOR’s action was an unconstitutional executive modification of the
court’s order, finding instead that the seizure was not in conflict with the
decree, but entirely consistent with it. Finally, the court rejected the
due-process claim, noting that the seizure had been preceded by a trial in
which the arrearage was set, and that notice and an opportunity for
administrative review had been provided. Looking at the governmental
interest at stake, the court observed, "It is hard to imagine a more
compelling state interest than the support of
its children." Id.,
at 675.
§ 9.32
CONCLUSION
As child support becomes the
critical safety net for families leaving or avoiding public assistance,
the mission of the program continues to expand. At its inception in 1975,
Congress created a federal-state partnership designed to increase child
support collections as a means of reimbursing the public fisc for public
assistance costs. Since then, Congress has expanded the mission to require
states to provide services to families not on public assistance, in the
expectation that regular payment of child support will enable these families
to remain self-sufficient. Congress has also pushed states to strengthen
their enforcement remedies, with an ever-expanding arsenal of tough
enforcement tools, ranging from universal wage assignments and
computer-driven seizures of income and assets to license revocation and
criminal prosecution.
Automation will reach
approximately 60 percent of child support obligors. In Massachusetts, for
example, if the noncustodial parent has a job, a bank account, or a driver’s
or professional license; collects unemployment or worker’s compensation; or
pays taxes, DOR can probably collect support. It is more difficult to get at
the self-employed, the unemployed, the underemployed, and the "under the
table" employed. This remaining 40 percent will therefore require a
multi-pronged strategy for a multi-dimensional problem: high-visibility
criminal prosecutions and other tough enforcement initiatives to continue to
galvanize public attention and encourage voluntary compliance, accompanied
by more sophisticated outreach programs that support positive and
responsible involvement of fathers in the lives of their children and
include collaboration with "seek work" and job training programs for
low-income, unemployed fathers.
As a result of the
welfare reform debate, in a short amount of time, the long-term harmful
consequences on children of growing up in a single-parent family have
reached the public’s awareness. With a third of children born out of wedlock
and half of marriages ending in divorce, more than half of the children of
this generation will spend at least part of their childhood in a
single-parent household. Of these, an estimated 73 percent will experience
periods of poverty during their minority, as compared to only 20 percent of
children raised with two parents in the home. Perhaps worse than periodic
economic deprivation are the increased risks of other social disadvantages.
Children growing up with only one parent are three times more likely to have
a child out of wedlock, 2.5 times more likely to become teen mothers, twice
as likely to drop out of school, and 1.4 times as likely to be idle -- out
of school and out of work as young adults. They are at greater risk of
substance abuse, depression, juvenile delinquency, and a host of other
social dysfunctions. These risk factors cut across race, sex, parents’
education, and place of residence. McLanahan and Sandefur, Growing Up
with a Single Parent, pp. 2-3, Harvard University Press (1994).
While Congress and state
legislatures should not legislate morality, they can support parent
education programs that strengthen marriage and discourage out-of-wedlock
births. Today the cultural norms that militate against marriage -- as
reflected in television, movies and just everyday life -- seem
well-entrenched. But not too long ago, the same might have been said about
drunk driving and smoking tobacco. Well-conceived and well-executed
campaigns to educate the public can work. And child support agencies, as the
frontline professionals who deal with the fallout of divorce and unmarried
parentage, are particularly well positioned to assist in this endeavor.
By requiring states to
put in place comprehensive child support programs, Congress has put teeth in
the concept that becoming a parent and having children creates an
irrevocable, nontransferable lien on the income and assets of each parent.
Responsibility for financial support should not be transferred to the other
parent or to the taxpayer except in extraordinary circumstances. Moreover,
there will never be a good record on payment of current support unless
states are also tough on collection of past-due support. Today’s current
support unpaid becomes tomorrow’s arrears. Yesterday’s arrears, if not
vigorously pursued, lead obligors to believe they can ignore today’s current
support. When an obligor is permitted to accrue an arrearage with impunity,
he or she has no incentive to comply with current support payments, and
there is little to deter future noncompliance. For some, this is undoubtedly
a tough stance. However, children need support on time and in full every
week. And for those parents who do regularly make the necessary sacrifices
to pay in full, it acknowledges their commitment by taking steps to ensure
that all parents fulfill their financial responsibility to their children.
For the complete U.S. Constitution Click Here
Parental
Rights Citations
More Parental Rights Citations The claim has been made that "The only debt you can be sent to jail for is child support becuase they have called it "not a debt" to get around the other laws. "
|