Hello Mike, You
might be interested in a letter to
the editor that I got published in
the Lawrence Eagle Tribune today (Sunday
edition) on the child support issue.
I have copied it below.
Also, I was screwed
over by the appeals court which is
awarding double attorney fees to the
Mother claiming that my appeal was
frivolous (?!). I am working
on my petition for rehearing, which
you might be interested in reading.
It is still a work in progress so
I will ATTACH the file of
what I have written. I plan on cc'ing
it to Romney, the Globe, Herald, Eagle
Tribune, and every legislator in the
state.
See published
letter here:
The Massachusetts
Child Support Guidelines are currently
under review for revision.
Public forums have been held recently
across the state.
Make
no mistake about it. The current
child support orders have nothing
to do with the best interests of
the children and everything to do
with enticing mothers into this
billion-dollar industry. I
say mothers, not custodial parents,
because the only individuals who
pretend that the family courts in
Massachusetts are not biased against
fathers are the hypocrites who profit
in these kangaroo courts.
Those
of us who have witnessed this system
of organized crime first hand
know that mothers have the absolute
power to guarantee a sole custody
arrangement if they simply claim
that they cannot "get along"
with their children's father.
Mothers
reveal that they are very aware
of the outrageous deal that they
get with sole custody every time
they express the insulting comment
in court that fathers only want
joint custody to get out of paying
child support.
If joint
custody saves fathers money, then
the child support orders are apparently
larger than the actual costs to
raise a child because in a 50/50
joint physical custody arrangement,
the father would be providing for
his children directly for the equally
balanced time that he has with them.
There
are several factors that make the
Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines
the very worst in the nation.
The father's time with his children
and the child-related expenses that
come with that time are ignored,
the mother is allowed to deduct
her first $20,000 of income in the
support formula, and thanks to the
Internal Revenue, the mother receives
tax breaks that are unthinkable.
Although
the father is the only parent who
pays the taxes on the money that
is paid in child support, it is
the mother who mysteriously is allowed
to claim the dependent child deduction,
the Child Tax Credit, the Earned
Income Credit, deductions for school
tuition and fees, the Child Care
Credit, AND a lower tax rate for
filing as a "head of household."
All of
these tax breaks are gift-wrapped
to the mother despite the fact that
she often contributes nothing financially
to her children's support.
On the
other hand, the federal tax code
treats divorced and unwed fathers
paying up to 50% of their income
in child support as if they are
childless bachelors. A recent
study conducted by divorce researchers,
Stanford Braver and David Stockburger,
concluded that in Massachusetts
a mother only needs to earn 40%
of what the father of her children
earns in order to enjoy a similar
standard of living.
Fortunately,
most mothers realize that children
need both parents significantly
involved in their lives and possess
the integrity to not be tempted
by any amount of money. For
the rest of us, family court reform,
including reform of the Child Support
Guidelines needs to happen.
Kevin
Thompson
Methuen,
MA
(978)
691-1191
