|
|
 |
|
| |
| 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. |
| |
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: |
| |
|
Letter to Anne Archer
Child
Support Hearings Letter
Guideline
Review
Guideline
Debate
Guidelines
Hearings
Open
Letter to Child Support Review
Committee of Massachusetts
Judicial System
Child
Support Lunacy
Non-Father
Pays Child Support to Father
Fathers
Being Forced To Pay College
Costs is Not Legal
Child
Support Over 18 Years of Age
Child
Support or Child Extortion?
Child
Support During College
Child
Support Boondoggle
Child
Support Explained |
| |
| Financial
Incentives and Kickbacks For
More Child Support: |
| |
Federal
Child Support Kickbacks
Audio
Podcast on How the State benefits
of denying Parental Access
Child
Support Kickbacks that help
create this fraud
More
on Child Support Kickbacks
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 Kickbacks
Child Support or Child Extortion
Lunacy
CS Explained
Child Support is the Cause
of Many Suicides
Child support statistics
-
http://www.fathersforlife.org/CS/usa/child_support_data_us.htm |
| |
| Arguments
to make in court and motions: |
| |
1.
You are a WILLING parent and
no criminal neglect or abuse
has been found against you.
The fact that you want to
be a parent is unacceptable
to the State and to the Mom
because in order to profit
from your children they have
to say you are not around
or have abandoned the children.
2. The State is engaged
in LIMITING your involvement
by ORDER.
3. The Mom is engaged
in LIMITING your involvement
by DENYING YOU MORE TIME.
4. The State and Mom
are now working together to
make the argument that you
have abandoned the family
because you are not present.
5. The State and Mom
are forcing you into having
to turn over your finances
(WARD OF THE STATE) to someone
else. You are being penalized
without a finding that you
have committed a crime.
6. The State and Mom
are BOTH welfare recipients
(State from Fed) (Mom from
State & You) because she
cannot maintain her own home
without your resources. The
State cannot fit you into
the Title IV-D Welfare model
unless you have limited involvement
with your child.
7. The State is aiding
in the neglect of your child
because Mom cannot sustain
her own Home and is a welfare
recipient. She is unfit and
the State and She is trying
to make you pay for it.
8. If the State wants
to limit your involvement
and your ex is denying you
contact, then the State should
be taking care of welfare
recipient, not you. You should
continue to enjoy the same
freedoms as before the separation. |
| |
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 |
| |
Buchholz
v. Buchholz, 166
S.W.3d 146 (Missouri Court
of Appeals, Southern District,
July 7, 2005): The trial court's
imputation of income to the
husband in the amount of $145,000
was not supported by substantial
evidence, despite evidence
that the husband earned approximately
$145,000 per year prior to
failure of his business and
his filing for bankruptcy,
and despite the court's finding
that the husband's testimony
concerning his efforts to
obtain employment was not
credible, since the wife presented
no evidence that the husband
had made less than a good
faith effort to obtain employment
or that such employment was
available, and nothing in
the record indicated that
the husband's diminished income
was the result of a deliberate
or voluntary attempt to avoid
support obligations. |
| |
|
L.
P. Hollander Company v. William
H. Porter, 267 Mass. 378; 166
N.E. 724; 1929
Common Law right of reciprocals
again: "When a father has
the duty to support his child
he has a right to determine
what the character of that support
shall be." |
| |
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)
§ 1673. Restriction
on garnishment
(a) Maximum allowable garnishment.
Except as provided in subsection
(b) and in section 305 [15
USCS § 1675], the maximum
part of the aggregate disposable
earnings of an individual
for any workweek which is
subject to garnishment may
not exceed
(1) 25 per centum
of his disposable earnings
for that week, or
(2) the amount
by which his disposable earnings
for that week exceed thirty
times the Federal minimum
hourly wage prescribed by
section 6(a)(1) of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938
[29 USCS § 206(a)(1)] in effect
at the time the earnings are
payable,
whichever is less. In the
case of earnings for any pay
period other than a week,
the Secretary of Labor shall
by regulation prescribe a
multiple of the Federal minimum
hourly wage equivalent in
effect to that set forth in
paragraph (2).
(b) Exceptions.
(1) The restrictions
of subsection (a) do not apply
in the case of--
(A) any order for the support
of any person issued by a
court of competent jurisdiction
or in accordance with an administrative
procedure, which is established
by State law, which affords
substantial due process, and
which is subject to judicial
review.
(B) any order of any court
of the United States having
jurisdiction over cases under
chapter 13 of title 11 of
the United States Code [11
USCS §§ 1301 et seq.]
(C) any debt due for any State
or Federal tax.
(2)
The maximum part of the aggregate
disposable earnings of an
individual for any workweek
which is subject to garnishment
to enforce any order for the
support of any person shall
not exceed--
(A) where
such individual is supporting
his spouse or dependent child
(other
than a spouse or child with
respect to whose support such
order is used), 50 per centum
of such individual's
disposable earnings
for that week; and
(B) where
such individual is not supporting
such a spouse or dependent
child described in clause
(A), 60 per centum of such
individual's disposable earnings
for that week;
except that, with respect
to the
disposable earnings
of any individual for any
workweek, the 50 per centum
specified in clause (A) shall
be deemed to be 55 per centum
and the 60 per centum specified
in clause (B) shall be deemed
to be 65 per centum, if and
to the extent that such earnings
are subject to garnishment
to enforce a support order
with respect to a period which
is prior to the twelve-week
period which ends with the
beginning of such workweek.
(c) Execution or enforcement
of garnishment order or process
prohibited. No court of the
United States or any State,
and no State (or officer or
agency thereof), may make,
execute, or enforce any order
or process in violation of
this section.
15 USCS § 1673
The
term disposable income is
defined in 15 USCS § 1672:
15
USCS § 1672 (2005)
§ 1672. Definitions
For the purposes of this title
[15 USCS §§ 1671 et seq.]:
(a) The term
"earnings" means
compensation paid or payable
for personal services, whether
denominated as wages, salary,
commission, bonus, or otherwise,
and includes periodic payments
pursuant to a pension or retirement
program.
(b) The
term "disposable earnings"
means that part of the earnings
of any individual remaining
after the deduction from those
earnings of any amounts required
by law to be withheld.
(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.
15 USCS § 1672
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.
General Motors Acceptance
Corp. v. Metropolitan Opera
Asso., 98 Misc. 2d 307, 308-309
(N.Y. Misc. 1978)
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."
|
A Beautiful and to
the Point Letter
Reprint - Letter to
the Editor, The Trinitonian,
April 22, 2005, San
Antonio, Texas
Dear
Editor,
Your
April 15 article,
“Former rushing champ
pays for child,” said
that Ricky Williams,
former running back
for the Miami Dolphins,
was ordered to pay
$4,200 per month in
child support for
his son.
If
my math is correct,
this will equal $50,400
per year. Also,
if my math is correct,
according to calculations
from the 2004 US Department
of Health and Social
Services*,
this is approximately
the poverty level
for a family of 10
in Hawaii, where the
mother chooses to
reside.
Certainly both parents
should support their
child. But it is figures
like these that show
the Child Support
Industry is totally
out of whack. The
concept of 50/50 shared
parenting would bring
a much needed dose
of realism to a misandric
legislative and judicial
system.
Justice for fathers
is not found in family
courts; this must
change.
Don
Mathis
Most of us agree that
the child support
system is very wrong.
Take for instance
my case when I got
divorced. If $20,000.00
of the ex's income
is to go towards day
care, well then my
judge gave her another
$20,000.00 on top
of that. Basically
my ex is not supporting
my children, all she
is doing is letting
them sleep in the
house. My income is
roughly 750.00 before
taxes. Of that I must
pay $334 per week
for child support.
Another 75.00 per
week for day care.
and if my children
go to camp in the
summer which they
do, I must pay an
additional 1/3 for
the cost of the camp.
which this year it
came to 3200.00. then
I must pay 1500.00
(500 per child) in
clothing allowance
on September 1st and
December 1st. Oh and
the house that we
owned together, when
she sold it. I had
to pay not only for
my divorce lawyer,
but hers as well,
and she was the one
who wanted the divorce.
All this the judge
gave her because he
once practiced law
in the same firm as
her lawyer. But you
figure out the math.
I am forced to live
on a meager existence
of around 75 dollars
a week. Thank god
I have a girl
friend.
Fathers
are carrying the entire
financial burden of
children and more.
This is NOT equal
rights for women!
Elmer
Stratton <ebstratton@comcast.net>
wrote:
Disabled
for the last year,
unable to get a
doctor to clear
me for work, a year
of no income and
finally getting
disability of 846
dollars a month.
So
this puts me behind
about 6, 000 dollars
in support, the
mother and her lawyer
is demanding 1,000
dollars by Tuesday
or they will ask
the judge for jail
time.
I
made the mistake
last month of borrowing
1,000 dollars, but
now there
isn’t any way I
can come up with
any money, most
of my family know
it would be next
to impossible to
repay, But the mother
thinks 30 days in
jail will produce
1,000 dollars.
I’m
really thinking
of not going to
court Tuesday, so
I can spend the
holidays with my
family, but couldn’t
with my youngest,
because the mother
would have me arrested.
Not in the next
few weeks my 5 year
old will have her
tonsils removed,
and there is no
way I can help her
through this.
It would be nice
if all available
people could protest
the court, mother
and her attorney,
because I feel they
would be right if
I was eligible to
go to work, but
I’m not.
People often say you
can’t get blood from
a stone, but the court
will surely try,
Also
finally after 8
month my motion
to modify will be
heard but not before
going up about 3,500
dollars, no way
can I believe the
court will agree
to it retroactive.
Elmer
ebstratton@comcast.net
|
| | | | |
