Summary comments:

It is not clear that these hearings are taken very seriously but we will see what results.  Only major changes would be acceptable. It is clear the guidelines are about double what they should be once you are over $50,000 in total household income.  This review process is federally mandated each four years, but according to the people running them have absolutely no budget, are rushed and in fact they recognize there are a great many known serious problems without them being addressed for years.

I testified in Worcester about the great disparity caused by the current child support guidelines (see letter and financial analysis). I detailed a scenario where an average family with the father earning $40,000 and mother earning $20,000 would have a mother living at an 81% higher standard of living (based on take-home pay) than the father due to the many hidden tax benefits, income disregard and other factors.  I testified that any father earning less than $60,000 would not be able to afford a very basic one bedroom apartment and bare necessities. So the bulk of people fathers under these guidelines are living in or near poverty. The judges are breaking the laws they are suppose to enforce every day by going outside the guideline (higher of course so they feel like heroes) without the legally required finding of facts.   The judges are imputing income that does not exist and therefore breaking federal law that limits the amount of garnished earning to 60% of take-home pay (single father - 50% for father with second family). The judges are basically out of control and doing whatever they want and legislating from the bench and breaking their oaths of office.

I was not allowed to testify a second time in Boston (see text), as they ran out of time with all the people there. I would have detailed the scenario, that is now epidemic,  where a father earning $50,000 would be forced to live on $357 per month after court orders him to continue to pay for the home he was thrown out of (usually without good reason or due process under the theory that the word "fear" can strip a man of his constitutional rights to his children, income and property) AND also pay 26% of his GROSS pay (before taxes, therefore about 39% of net pay) for child support. How many people can live of about $10/day and 13% of their previous income? This system is manufacturing criminals because under this you are forced to work under the table, leave the state/country or just give up and commit suicide. You are instantly made a slave to your soon to be ex-wife where she gets everything from day one without you even being able to say a word in court. And once these restraining orders are granted most judges do not want to remove them. They can even be granted for "life".

 These guidelines are the highest in the nation (by percentage which takes cost of living into account already) and are about double the amount in many states. There is no correlation to the INCREMENTAL cost of raising a child or foundation for them report. There is no accountability for the spending of the fund and so effectively this a an ex-wives welfare system, not a child support system.

The family court system is morally and ethically bankrupt and is destroying fathers for the benefit of mothers every day. Their "excuse" is that this in in the "best interest of the children". BULLSHIT and they know this is not true. Taking away a father, destroying him financially, making him a visitor is not in any child's best interest. Do they have no common sense? Why do they do this? It is INSANE!

---------------------------------------------------------

* I was able to attend the last child support hearing in Boston this past Tuesday--I will post my submitted comments later. Very well attended. That was the last hearing and there are no more. Kudos to Ned Holstein and Dan Hogan of Fathers and Families for getting so may out there. Saw Dan Grubbs and Isaac Saiss among the crowd. One major problem--the child support guidelines committee is not adequately funded and is sort of being thrown together. Most of the people spoke on behalf of fathers, and those in support of increasing child support came from government funded groups.

Major complaints Heard in Testimony: 

1. The 20,000 disregard in the formula of the mothers income. Right now child support follows a formula based on the income of both parents. The first $20,000 of the mothers income is disregarded.

2. The sheer amounts of the awards--far in excess of the true incremental cost of having children--i.e.., the true amount of ADDITIONAL COST BUT FOR having the child. Right now child support is used to pay bills such as the mortgage or phone bill or heat bill which are cost that would have to be born regardless whether one has a child. Also, many fathers testified how they were impoverished and also how they could not provide for the children they had the kids.

3. No accountability--the mother uses the money as she wishes without itemizing how they should be spent on child. Many fathers reported having to buy clothes.

4. Complaints about terms such as "visitation" instead of "parenting time" as if the father was just a visitor.

5. Courts are unfairly making up a salary of a father and using them in the child support formula ("imputed" or "attributed" income) while at the same time almost never attributing income to the mother, many of whom only work 20 hours per week. Imputed income needs to be either eliminated altogether or modified so it is clear that reductions in salary that are not related to avoiding the support obligation are not used as a basis to impute income.

6. There were complaints that the child support guidelines have not underlying rationale in terms of economic data or reasoning (what exactly should the father help pay? for example) but appear to be randomly generated.

COMPLAINT: Time to speak of 3 minutes is WAY too short. The meeting went from 4 pm to 5:40. By way of example, the matrimonial commission in New York had a panel of 13, who met for entire day.
Time for each speaker was ten minutes--speakers were scheduled in advance. This panel only had two judges.

The Child Support Guideline Reviews are mandated by Federal Law in exchange for federal dollars.

Under our constitution, family law matters are supposed to be left as a state concern.


Above reported by Attorney Rinaldo Del Gallo, spokesman of the Berkshire Fatherhood Coalition, who practices in family law. He may be reached at 413-443-3150 for those needing legal help or support.