Home Recommended Products Contact Us
Resources & Links
Fatherlessness Statistics
Child Support
Legal Resources
Search This Site
Bad Judges List
Free Templates
Restraining Orders
Judicial Abuse Stories
Father's Stories
Legal Help & Referrals
Constitutional Rights
Table of Contents
Terms & Conditions
Signup for Newsletter
Search Site
Child support list -- beginning -- draft
DRAFT  DRAFT  DRAFT  Please comment and add to it.
Child support is a form of social engineering that has gone awry.
It is flawed.  Its goal is not to change the standard of living of the children following a family breakup.
The standard is impossible to obtain when two instead of one household is being supported by the same income.

The REALITY is that a family breakup must inevitably harm everyone. 
The question is -- to what degree, and more importantly,
and secondly, what can the state do to HELP minimize the DURATION of this harm?

The guiding principle should be to ENCOURAGE both households to INCREASE their income, the sooner the better.
The Guideline does EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE:  It encourages BOTH parties to minimize their income.
With that said,
In each case, the parents must establish the PRE-DIVORCE and MID-DIVORCE cost of maintenance per child per year.

Each parent is responsible for child support equally.
That amount must be increased or decreased in proportion to parenting time with child(ren).

There must be ACCOUNTABILITY of how the child support is used to support the child(ren).

Custodial Wife remarries, no problem.  Her spouse benefits by having THIRD income in household.  The NEW HUSBAND’S QUALITY OF LIFE IS ENHANCED, AS ARE POSSIBLY HIS ASSETS.

Husband to remarry.  Bride-to-be fearful that she will be obligated to use her money to contribute to child-support payments to ex-wife.  PERQUISITE INCOME.

The Custodial Wife’s assets are increased by half of the equity in her new marital home ... even if it is standing in the name of her New Husband.    Arguably, if W were to divorce N-H, that home would be considered marital assets and W would likely get at least half.

This new asset must be listed on her Financial Statement when Former Husband seeks modification for substantially changed circumstances.
(Substantially changed circumstances = 20 percent change up or down in income.)

H lives with parents rent-free.  The amount of free rent is PERQUISITE INCOME.

Wife with custody
Expense of child(ren) = X (hypothetically $100 per week)
H = 14 percent
H = 150,000    H = 60,000    H = 20,000    H = unemployed    H = disability
W = 150,000    W = 60,000    W = 20,000    W = unemployed    W = disability

H = 150,000  = ˝ X   = 50   or   .14(100) to pay =    14.00
W = 150,000 =  ˝ X   = 50  or    .86(50)  to pay =    86.00

Wife with custody of one child
Husband with custody of other child
Should be no child support in either direction.
OR H’s child support payments should be offset money he is to receive from W.
OR vice versa.
True Anecdote
H = 3300 per month gross disability  -- court treated it as “income”
W = 228,000 gross annual income, or 19,000 per month.
Court ordered him to pay 1700.
W ended up with 20,700 gross monthly income
H ended up with 1600 a month income.  One child went to live with him (no court order to do so. 
He continued to pay child support.
W did not pay him child support for the one child living with Hubby.
And when does this all end: EMANCIPATION?  Arbitrary by court.
Cases say c-s while child in college full time.
Recently case said child just needs to be living at home.
Guidelines should speak. 

(Actually legislature should but probably will not.  In actual fact, child support is not one of the factors in section 34 of the divorce statute.  C-S is a federal govt invention . . . via CAPTA laws.)

The entire scheme is unconstitutional.   No Mass. legislature has spoken.  C-S guidelines written by committee (likely exec committee) and new rules are added by judicial fiat.

And when the family ends up residing in two States.
Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act
Mass Child Custody Jurisdiction Act
Within 6 months of moving to new State, W gets emergency restraining order out of New State.
After 6 months, goes in for modification of c-s -- she does not have new job or ex-H has new job --
relitigate child support.
Mass c-s order obsolete, other applies. 
None of this is set out in guidelines, causing MORE expense. 
Who pays for MORE LITIGATION?  The W who moves or the H, who already paid her atty's fees?
Barbara C. Johnson, Advocate of Court Reform and Attorney at Law
6 Appletree Lane
Andover, MA 01810-4102

email: barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net
False Allegations: http://www.falseallegations.com
Participating Attorney: http://www.lawguru.com/cgi/bbs2/user/browse.shtml
Campaign 2002: http://www.barbforgovernor.com
The judicial system is very broken. It must be fixed.
There are four people who can do the job:
Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, and Nobody.
Everybody thinks Somebody will surely do it.
It is a job Anybody can do. But Nobody is doing it.
At least I'm trying. What are you doing?

"Women are not men's life partners, but rivals favored by law."
                 Paul Craig Roberts, in "The Wars We Can't Afford to Lose,"
                 citing Professor Richard T. Hise, The War Against Men