Child Support Boondoggle Created By the People Who Profit While Harming Children





Posted by: "Greg C"   soupperg

Tue Aug 8, 2006 1:24 pm (PST)

S.P.A.R.C. Separated Parenting Access & Resource Center
"Keeping Families Connected"



MARCH 16, 2000


Authors Note: This is one of the first
well-documented challenges to the child support
guidelines in the printed record. (One of the earlier
well-documented challenges was done by Roger F. Gay,
and is available here: Project for the Improvement of
Child Support Litigation Technology.) This research
(as well as the work done by Roger F. Gay) can be used
by every noncustodial parent to challenge any
court-imposed child support based on guidelines. This
can be accomplished by a father motioning for the
court to take "judicial notice" of this testimony
(printed record) and concurrently presenting an
affidavit with the individual realistic child support
costs in that particular case. If the judge rejects
this, the petitioner may appeal his ruling. Bill and I
feel that most if not all cases would win on appeal,
based on the precedents established in the Kumho case
recently in the U.S. Supreme Court. Fathers are
encouraged to use this as a resource to explain how
fathers can use this printed record to rebut
guidelines in their cases.

We would like to thank the Honorable Henry Hyde and
the Honorable Lynn Woolsey for this opportunity to
contribute written testimony to this Committee. It is
an indication of the greatness of this country when
our citizenry has direct input into the National
Political process. Dr. Richard Weiss is an Associate
Professor of Veterinary Pathology, College of
Veterinary Medicine, Auburn University. Richard is a
non-custodial parent of two daughters, 11 and 12 years
old and he has recently served on several Alabama
Supreme Court Committees on Custody and Divorce.
William Wood is a Business Management and Technology
Consultant volunteering his time to help families and
children in the State of North Carolina and around the
country. William is a custodial father of an 8
year-old little girl and can appreciate Ms. Woolsey's
challenges in trying to raise children as a single

As is increasingly evident today, families and
relationships are fragile. We have a divorce rate
surpassing 50% and many of these broken marriages
include children who represent our nation's next
generation of leaders, scientists, doctors, lawyers,
politicians, policemen, etc. More and more children
find themselves in the midst of a money war, caught
between feuding parents, feuding lawyers, and a state
"Family" Court system who's purpose is the division of
property, apportioning "visitation", awarding child
support, and dissolving their parent's marriage.

Child support compliance is a 50 state plague on the
United States of America with 55,000 ENFORCEMENT
AGENTS. I would like to reiterate, that is 55,000
ENFORCEMENT AGENTS which does not include the police
officers involved with jailing "deadbeat dads",
judges, advocates, administrative personnel processing
claims, OCSE staff and expenses, attorneys, (at a
rough average of some $185 an hour), and other
ancillary individuals and costs.

Let's consider that number for just a moment: 55,000
ENFORCEMENT AGENTS each at an estimated average salary
of $25,000 a year is approximately 1.375 BILLION
DOLLARS a year in just ENFORCEMENT AGENT wages alone,
excluding associated fees such as jails, courts,
administrators, computer systems, lawyers, judges, and
other ancillary costs associated with tracking down
"deadbeat dads". Child Support collections in the
United States have become BIG BUSINESS represented by
special interest lobby groups offering testimony to
this US House Committee. Child Support Collections in
the United States has become a new millennium

The entire industry relies on junk data and junk
statistics inflated by half-truths and deceptions.
These are designed to perpetuate the "deadbeat dad"
myth in spite of considerable evidence that indicates
more fathers are instead just "deadbroke"*fn1.

This new growth industry constantly needs more
destroyed families and children to harvest more
"deadbeats" to flourish. This divorce industry seems
to have now leveled off at ~50% of BROKEN FAMILIES to
plunder, creating a pervasive need to recruit more
"deadbeats". As a result, further distortions,
fabrications, half-truths, and increasingly harsher
draconian measures have been instituted to ensure
greater levels of "non-compliance". The more
COLLECTIONS, the fatter the "bonus check" from the
Federal Government to the states and other vested
interests in this new growth industry. The entire
domain of Child Support Enforcement has become a haven
for Junk Science by those with an interest in the
destruction of the family and obsessive collection of
Child Support checks.

Junk Science and Junk Data have been used to
manipulate the entire lawmaking process. Peter Huber
coined the phrase "junk science" to refer to
questionable expert testimony in the courtroom. [fn28]
"Junk science," Huber writes, "is the mirror image of
real science, with much of the same form but none of
the substance." [fn29] He complains that courts permit
"self-styled scientists" to engage in
"pseudoscientific speculation." [fn30] A central issue
in the junk science debate is the admissibility of
expert opinion in the adjudicative process.
[fn31]"*fn2 Though this quote deals with the courts,
the entire legal process, including legislative
hearings have been virtually hijacked by self-serving
special interests who pretend to "protect children"
but do not care what destructive side effects their
advocacy may have on those children.

The Hague Convention on Recognition and Enforcement
created an international cooperative in the
enforcement of child support orders in 1973.
"Coincidentally," in 1974 Senator Russell Long came to
the conclusion that there was a connection between
"fathers who abandon their children" and a growth in
Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). With
no study and no basis for this conclusion, his efforts
led to the original federal child support and
paternity legislation enacted in January 1975 *fn3.
The new agency's purpose was to collect Child Support
from those fathers whose children were on welfare.
This was done to try to reduce welfare expenditures by
funding states through their legislatures if those
states would create guidelines. These "guidelines"
replaced legal due process procedures for determining
the actual cost of raising a child.

A landmark case occurred in the Oregon Supreme Court
in 1981 that substantively explained child support
doctrine *fn4. This case found that the welfare
formula for Child Support Collections did not apply to
cases outside of the welfare system and required a
special burden of ascertaining financial details
appropriate for the support of children.

It frustrated the Courts to deal with the details of
determining actual needs based on gross and net
income, property values, forms of compensation, and
then attempting to equitably apportion them because
these cases were often appealable *fn5. From this
original evidentiary based "rebuttable presumption" of
actual costs and needs, we moved to more uniform
"guidelines" presenting a facade of a rebuttable
presumption (45 CFR 302) but whose outcome often
prevents appeals. Today, appeals are difficult because
the defining facts and specific data for the
guidelines are unknown and have never been published.
Therefore, the "rebuttable presumption" is only a
concoction fabricated by the states to meet Federal
requirements. There are, in fact, no actual costs or
data available to rebut.

All of these guideline problems make the "rebuttable
presumption" mandated by the Federal Government (under
45 CFR 302) a useless facade. The PSI guidelines and
Income Shares exacerbate this problem by failing to
meet the Federal requirement of "the most recent
economic data on child rearing costs..." required for
the stipulated quadrennial state reviews.

One pending case in Alabama challenges the rebuttable
presumption of the child support guidelines. *fn6
There is a related follow up case to this that seeks
to force the Courts to abide by their own contracts
with Child Support awards. *fn7

The State of Kansas has filed a Federal Appeals case
against the United States Government *fn8 and stated
in opening arguments on January 20, 2000 in the 10th
Circuit Court of Appeals that current Child Support
guidelines are "unconstitutionally coercive".

A Michigan attorney has successfully challenged the
constitutionality of some of the Child Support
Enforcement practices in the State of Michigan *fn9.
Based on this initial victory about the
UNCONSTITUTIONAL nature of Michigan's practices,
another Class Action has been filed representing the
2,000,000 obligors (predominantly fathers) in the
state *fn10. The Michigan papers are beginning to
recognize the Courts and the Child Support "system"
are out of control *fn11.

In a March 1, 2000 Louisiana appeals case, the lower
Court engaged in blatant, capricious, and malicious
gender bias *fn12. The husband and wife had similar
seasonal jobs. The husband's wages were imputed with
low points of the seasonal job ignored, and the wife's
wages were treated differently. The lower court's
ruling was reversed on appeal. In a March 7, 2000
Minnesota appeals case *fn13, the lower court refused
to correct imputed income and it too was reversed on
appeal. An Ohio court of appeals remanded a case back
to the lower court *fn14 on March 6, 2000 for
reconsideration because Tax adjustments for the
obligor were not appropriately factored into the
guidelines and should have been considered as part of
the "rebuttable" presumption.

These are just a few of the cases heard within the
last couple of months. The fact that such cases have
been routinely overturned on appeal demonstrates not
only that the "guidelines" are faulty but also that
lower courts are reluctant to consider reasonable
"rebuttals" to the guidelines. These "guidelines" have
in fact become rigid de facto laws.

Census Bureau data from 1989 indicated that 75 percent
of all child support owed is paid *fn15, and showed
that the TOTAL amount of Child Support owed was 14.8
BILLION dollars. Of that amount, 11.1 BILLION had been
paid (7.6 BILLION was paid in full, and 3.5 BILLION
was partially paid). According to a 1992 report by the
Government Accounting Office, Child Support
non-payment is NOT by choice. This report showed that
66% of the fathers were not able to pay, 5% were
unable to be located, and 29% were classified as other

Analysis of methodology used by the Census Bureau
Child Support to compile data is even more disturbing.
Dan Weinberg, who heads the census division that
collects Child Support data, has stated that this data
is based solely on the custodial mother's
recollection, and there is no cross-check or
verification with the non-custodial parent OR any
requirement for documentation *fn17. This statement
was made on the ABC 20/20 program on January 7, 2000,
where it was concluded that "deadbeat dads" are
actually "deadbroke dads". Let's reiterate, the Census
Bureau data is based solely on the custodial mother's
memory, influenced by her personal bias or anger, and
with NO verification to support the claims.

In 1992 custodial mother SELF REPORTED figures didn't
quite fit the expected "deadbeat dad" outcomes *fn18
indicating that 66% of non-support by fathers was from
inability to pay. In fact, the rate of child support
noncompliance by non-custodial MOTHERS is greater than
that of non-custodial fathers *fn19 yet there are no
slogans about "deadbeat moms" or social ostracism.

License revocations, property liens, contempt jailing,
and referrals to the US Attorney General enacted under
Federal authority are not generating significantly
more collections. This indicates that many targeted
fathers are just "deadbroke". Simple logic dictates
that revoking a license will likely result in the
inability to work and therefore exacerbate the

"The Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement has
nearly a $4 BILLION annual Budget. Of the $12 billion
CS arrearages, about three-fourths of them are
categorized as "uncollectable" - this is largely due
to unemployment." *fn20

Reviewing testimony before this committee, we are now
supposed to believe that some 50 BILLION dollars in
Child Support is owed. That would be over 3 times the
amount owed just over 10 years ago, based on
inaccurate, unverified, and likely inflated numbers
(see *fn17). This assumption would require us to
believe that any one or all of the factors underlying
Child Support collections have increased by over 3
times as well: salaries have increased 3 times,
divorce rates have skyrocketed 3 times, "awards" have
increased 3 times, or any combination, resulting in 3
times the problem. This 50 BILLION dollar figure
professed by Nick Young, Geraldine Johnson, and others
testifying before this committee defies logic *fn21.
Those with the most to gain by this system perpetuate
this 50 BILLION dollar junk data figure.

US Census Bureau data indicates there are ~11.6
million custodial mothers (85% of all custody awards)
collecting support. It seems a fair assumption that
there are ~11.6 million Child Support obligors for an
average ARREARAGE of ~$4,310. If this figure were in
fact accurate, this would indicate that there are
nearly 11 million obligors who are within a couple of
support payments (the $5,000 threshold) of
incarceration *fn22. With the number of states that
engage in mandatory pay check withholding, this shows
that either the 50 BILLION figure is false, child
support "awards" are too high, or most likely, both.
Will America soon require a massive penal system to
house all these poor fathers?

"The Bureau of the Census reported on child support
payments in the spring of 1995 *fn23. According to
that report, the so-called "deadbeat dads" are few and
far between in the population of fathers with
legitimate child support orders *fn24. Comments on
child support compliance often focus on the estimate
that only about 66% of the child support that has been
awarded is paid. This does not consider the fact that
more than 14% of the amount under study had been
recently awarded and was not yet due. Considering
custodial parent reporting bias and adjusting for
awards not yet due brings us closer in line with the
information provided by Braver et al. *fn25 as well as
information collected by commissioners in the states.
Approximately 80% of the total amount of child support
awarded in the U.S. historically has been paid each
year. The compliance rate was not significantly
affected by reforms." *fn26 This indicates that
special interests are manufacturing a problem when
none exists.

The Honorable Lynn Woolsey has stated "there were
child support enforcement reform laws in 1984, 1988,
1993, and 1996. None of them resulted in any
significant improvements in the rate of child support
collections." *fn27 The data would seem to indicate
this is because the numbers used by those with a
financial stake in Child Support Enforcement are false
or misleading, and that most of the non-support is
from inability to pay. To wit, a mandatory withholding
experiment conducted in 10 Wisconsin counties yielded
only a 2.89% increase in compliance, INDICATING THOSE

Child Support enforcement has criminalized Fatherhood.
*fn29 Yet it is interesting that there is little or no
information about bad mothers. If this were truly
about children, there would be more public
vilification of mothers based on the high rates of
child abuse perpetrated solely by mothers *fn30. The
lack of concern about children's health, safety, and
welfare, coupled with the insatiable lust of the
divorce industry for the FATHER'S PAYCHECK exposes the
financial motivation of the entire system. Considering
the US historically has had one of the highest, if not
the highest, compliance rates with child support
orders in the world *fn31, it is apparent that this
system LIES about "child" support while simultaneously
neglecting the welfare of children.

Robert Williams, the father of the Income Shares
model, worked as a consultant with the US Health and
Human Services (HHS) Office of Child Support
Enforcement from 1983-1990. In 1984 he started Policy
Studies, Inc. In 1987 he developed and introduced the
"Income Shares" model now used by over 30 states.
Williams currently consults states in Child Support
guidelines while owning and operating his child
support collection service with some 500 employees
creating a direct conflict of interests *fn32. In the
Mid 80's, under the "guise" of a need to raise child
support, a 250-350% increase was suggested without
specifically focusing on the child. The name of the
report itself betrays the unstated motive to include
Alimony or Spousal support under the pretense of
increasing basic child support needs: 350%: Estimates
of National Child Support Collections Potential and
the Income Security of Female-Headed Families
*fn33[emphasis added].

At about this same time (mid 80's), women's groups
rallied around Lenore Weitzman's statistically flawed
"73%" study in a frenzied attempt to gain alimony.
This "study" with its erroneous math and questionable
methods, helped disproportionately increase child
support payments for the custodial parent--, ~90% of
whom are mothers *fn34. This egregiously flawed data
has been used in discussing child support reforms.
Typically, income differences between men and women
are used as an excuse for the need to increase child
support. This "logic" is a direct appeal to include
some form of spousal support or alimony in the "child"
support calculation. Williams "model" then accepted
presumed "increases" in his 1987 report.

Williams widely used Incomes Shares model is not based
on separated or divorced household expenses for
children, and it arbitrarily under-accounts for shared
parenting time *fn35. Standard of living adjustments
aren't properly factored; Williams simply raises the
numeric tables arbitrarily producing results so high
that they often grossly inflate "child support" to
include alimony *fn36 (more junk "science").
Apportioning support based on time with each parent
has been suggested and some judges and lawyers openly
oppose these equitable determinations factoring the
amount of time with each parent in child support
amounts *fn37.

Williams (the owner of PSI) regularly advocates
increasing Child Support awards with little or no
credit for time with the non-custodial parent. This
creates a hardship on non-custodial parents (generally
fathers) struggling to remain involved with their
children. This also increases the pool of potential
child support obligation owed, and increased arrearage
for the non-custodial father's collection division to
exploit for their personal financial gain.

"Economic analysis comparing pre and post divorce
standard of living is highly speculative, is based on
unsubstantiated assumptions about family spending
patterns, and leaves out many important considerations
that would tend to show that post-divorce standard of
living is more nearly equal among the households of
split parents. *fn38"

Williams underlying data is flawed in its "economic"
studies and information that are in fact based on
non-like groups of intact families to arrive at major
"statistical" conclusions *fn39 (i.e. junk science) ".
. . the presumption that underlies the focus of much
of the empirical research and policy debate on income
distribution [within households] seems born of
ignorance and is supported by neither theory nor
fact." *fn40.

Williams' company, PSI, uses data erroneously based on
the study of costs of raising children in INTACT
households *fn41. PSI data relied partially on the
Rothbarth estimator which concludes family well-being
depends on the amount the family spends on alcohol and
tobacco! *fn42. The Williams PSI "income shares" model
also relies on the Engle estimator which is based on
century-old findings of an economist, Ernst Engle. The
premise appears valid at first and then Williams (PSI)
extrapolates completely unrelated data from this study
which dramatically inflates guideline numbers *fn43.
Gross Income versus Net Income as well as Day care and
Medical costs are estimated with no proper basis. The
underlying data is erroneous and not disclosed. Most
states using the Williams model also add additional
amounts as separate and distinct items for daycare,
health insurance, and medical expenses, yet PSI did
not parse those items from the expenditures for
children and are at least partially included in the
base "guidelines" creating double allocations for
obligors *fn44 (all junk "science").

Some states allow for "child support" to continue
AFTER a "child" is 18 and even living away from home.
This comes in the form of post-secondary support for
college. If a "child" is over 18, and no longer living
at home, and the check is still drafted to the
custodial parent and NOT the child, how can this be
called "child support"?. Though supporting children
through college is important, this additional burden
is clearly little more than Alimony or spousal
support. Ten states allow this, 11 states have
restrictions, 7 are silent on the issue, and the
remainder forbid it through statute or case law *fn45.
Also, there is no accountability to the obligor for a
"child" in college getting grants, loans, or other
public assistance from the government.

"Robert W. Braid, an accounting, finance and economics
professor, performed a detailed cost analysis in his
own case in New Jersey *fn46. Based on a comprehensive
cost and cash flow analysis, he calculated that he
should pay approximately $180 per month to the mother
in addition to sharing the direct costs of education
for one child in college. Based on the established New
Jersey formula, he was ordered to pay $903 per month,
plus half his daughter's college expenses. Mr. Braid
found that the judges decision implied that it 'must
cost $21,672 a year in after tax money to support one
child at home full-time (excluding any medical expense
and any money the father spends on vacations,
entertainment and hobbies with the boy), and one child
spending about 25% of her time at home and the rest in
college.' "

For example, using NY income numbers shows how child
support impoverishes the obligor. A non-custodial
parent (father ~90% of the time), earning $55,000 per
year pays child support for 2 children and ends up
with an income of only $14,000. The mother, earning
$26,000 per year, ends up having a disposable income
of over $44,000. Tax cost of all this to American
Taxpayers? Over $22 Billion! *fn47. The cost to the
obligor is virtual financial oblivion so severe that
the obligor can rarely even afford an appropriate
residence for maintaining a relationship with HIS
children (predominantly fathers). These poor, but
carefully manufactured living conditions through
financial destitution are often the basis for the
Courts restricting or removing even more of the
father's relationship with the child.

Requirements do not exist for child support recipients
to provide proof that the money was being spent in
support of the children. This is clearly an "open
door" to use this money for virtually any non-child
related wish the custodial parent may have (alimony).
The lack of accountability is violative of supporting
children and promotes personal use of the "award" by
the recipients *fn48.

The press is also starting to understand that the
whole "child support" shell game is about alimony or
spousal support. ABC Market Watch recently did an
article defining this as plainly biased against men
and is by design to "hide" alimony *fn49. The errors
and additional expenses included in the "guidelines"
support the claim that there is much more than just
child support included in the "award".

A fully informed challenge of the current Support
"Guidelines" in effect in most states would not likely
stand the reliability, validity, and methodology
standards erected by the US Supreme Court for "expert"
testimony. These more stringent standards recently
imposed by the Kumho case were designed by the
justices to create an affirmative responsibility by
lower courts to invalidate the junk science that
permeates the courts and legal system today. The
Supreme Court, in a rare move declared that admitting
unreliable, questionable, or invalid data was an ABUSE
OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION *fn50. Robert Williams and his
"Income Shares" model would likely not fare well in a
direct, substantive, and well-prepared court

It is finally becoming widely understood that father
absence is one of the most destructive forces to
children in our society --; fatherless homes account
for 63% of youth suicides, 90% of all homeless and
runaway children, *fn51 85% of all children exhibiting
behavioral disorders, *fn52 80% of rapists motivated
with displaced anger, *fn53 71% of all high school
dropouts, *fn54 75% of all adolescent patients in
chemical abuse centers, *fn55 70% of juveniles in
state-operated institutions, *fn56 and 85% of prison
youths. *fn57

Contrast this with 37.9% of fathers have no
access/visitation rights *fn58. Non-compliance with
court ordered visitation by custodial mothers prevents
77% of non-custodial fathers from being able to
"visit" their children *fn59. Non-compliance with
court ordered visitation is three times the problem of
non-compliance with court ordered child support and
impacts the children of divorce even more. 40% of
custodial mother SELF-REPORTS indicate they interfered
with the father's visitation to "punish" them, *fn60
~50% see no value in the father's involvement with the
child, *fn61 and many use the children to retaliate
against the father for their own ongoing personal
problems. *fn62

The court system does not enforce orders for
"visitation" but jails for non-compliance with a
"child" support order. This is a clear indication that
the whole DIVORCE INDUSTRY is about money and that
children are just "poker chips" in this high stakes
"game". Their destruction is just "collateral damage"
for the marriage hating special interests pushing
their junk data.

The entire arena of Family Law has become a domain of
Constitutional violations and usurpation of civil
rights. What a normal person would consider a Debtor's
Prison has been instituted. To usurp the Constitution,
the courts have "legislated" a perversion of the law
declaring "contempt" as the new Debtor's Prison Mantra
deceptively asserting it is not a debtor's prison
because jailing for contempt can be remedied upon
clearing the contempt charge (i.e. paying the DEBT!
aka Debtor's Prison). One man who earns $70 a week as
a street musician is in jail now and will NOT be
allowed to get out unless he can come up with $28,000
*fn63. After all, the courts have REFUSED to allow
visitation with his son for the last 6 years but
DEMAND his money... Similar situations abound with the
cost of the jail cell, incarceration, court time, and
other fees associated for those who obviously CAN'T
pay make for the state sponsored destruction and
eradication of fatherhood.

A California appeals court also declared that some
Child Support incarcerations were a violation of the
13th Amendment for involuntary servitude *fn64.
Federal enforcement of Child Support through the IRS,
as proposed in H.R. 1488, is arguably unconstitutional
by forcing the states to comply with Title IV-D *fn65.
The United States Supreme Court stated *fn66,
"Congress is without power to enlist state cooperation
in a joint federal-state program by legislation which
authorizes the States to violate the Equal Protection
Clause." and "[W]hile the Fifth Amendment contains no
equal protection clause, it does forbid discrimination
that is 'so unjustified as to be violative of due
process.' "

Nearly every state has legislation to seize bank
accounts and real property without a court order (for
"child" support) eliminating due process without a
sworn statement that the money is owed. In child
support politics, the Constitution has become passé
and encumbers or impedes the cash machine that has
been created. In this entire domain of "Family Law"
the Constitution as we know it has ceased to exist.
"State judges, as well as federal, have the
responsibility to respect and protect persons from
violations of federal constitutional rights." *fn67
This responsibility has been abandoned to pursue
Title-IV funding for the states.

State and Federal Governments now expend HUNDREDS OF
BILLIONS of dollars each year to support the marriage
and family destruction INDUSTRY with little to promote
or support marriage and families. There is some
indication that the press is starting to take note of
Child Support and the Multi-BILLION dollar Divorce
INDUSTRY that destroys families and thwarts the
Constitution *fn68. Many "deadbeat" dads are just
plain "deadbroke". They are humiliated and bankrupted
by a system that hides "alimony" in child support
payments designed to support single mothers and their
children *fn69 making it "profitable" for women to
divorce. Under Child Support Enforcement efforts,
draconian measures including "badges of infamy" like
the fabled "scarlet letter" have been instituted in
the form of jack boots for cars. In a Washington Times
article, Nick Young has STATED the intent of such
measures is humiliation *fn70.

Family Courthouses in America, in practice, have
become Family slaughterhouses. Families, children, and
our futures are being plundered through the use of
junk science represented as '"gold standards."
Destroying families and children in America has become
deadbeat dad myth, is just that, a myth. Fathers want
accountability and equity in a system that is both
unconstitutional and out of control *fn71.

Fathers are being destroyed by a system that seeks to
squeeze every ounce of money possible before
discarding them, with abject disdain for fathers and
their essential roles as anurturing parents,
protectors, role models, and caretakers of their
children. A father in Canada (a country with similar
custody policies and child support "guidelines" as the
US) recently killed himself after being ordered to pay
TWICE his income in support payments *fn72. With the
current junk rhetoric like the unsubstantiated 50
BILLION dollars arrearage amounts (not based on ANY
FACTUAL STUDY, i.e. junk data), we are not far from
this kind of tragedy being commonplace in America
*fn73. This destructive DIVORCE INDUSTRY must be

Robert Williams involvement with Child Support
Guideline creation through PSI, and his Child Support
Collections business creates a conflict of interest
and an inherent need for his "junk science" to
manufacture more "deadbeats". US citizens, as well as
Federal and State governments should DEMAND A FULL
Support Collections business has received for its
destruction of families.

The IRS does not have a stellar reputation for
resolving financial issues while observing the rights
of the citizenry and the Child Support Guidelines are
a mess. Giving them to the IRS to enforce with its
dubious reputation would likely create even more of a
mess *fn74. To resolve some of this mess and qualify
for Federal Funds, the states must be required by the
Federal Government to define what the child support
presumptions are and then assign appropriate values to
each of those presumptions to make them truly

The Federal Government MUST get involved, but not
through Child Support Collections via the IRS. Rather,
the government must now demand Justice and Equity in
the state "Family" Courts, and promote the
preservation of intact families by protecting the
rights of children to be raised and supported---both
financially and emotionally--, by BOTH parents, even
after divorce. Federally subsidized collection
agencies need to stop taking from the children what
their RHETORIC pretends to protect *fn75.

The social fabric of society is built upon the
strength of its family structure. Impoverishing and
vilifying parents by misguided and flawed mercenary
practices of government, joined at the hip to a
multi-billion dollar divorce industry, is rapidly
exsanguinating and killing the American family.

Restore Constitutional protections to the "Family
Court" process. It's time to look past the marriage
and family hating special interests, marriage hating
gender politics, and the bureaucracies. Look to the
families and children of America, or tomorrow there
may not be an America.

* *fn1 BAD DADS [Dead beat vs. Dead broke dads],
ABC News program 20/20, John Stossel and Barbara
Walters, January 7, 2000.
* *fn2 Partially Quoted from 72 N.C. L. Rev. 91 at
[FN30]. Id. at 3. Huber notes that "[t]he best test of
certainty we have is good science--the science of
publication, replication, and verification, the
science of consensus and peer review." Id. at 228.;
[FN31]. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical Inc.,
113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993), the Court dealt with the
admissibility of expert testimony about scientific
* *fn3 The Child Support Guideline Problem, Roger
F. Gay, MSc and Gregory J. Palumbo, Ph.D., May 6, 1998
* *fn4 In the Marriage of Smith, Or 626 P2d 342
* *fn5 Silvia v. Silvia, 400 N.E.2d 1330
* *fn6 Blackston v. Alabama, 30 F.3d 117. (11th
Cir. 1994);
* *fn7 U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Alabama Case # 99-A-295-N
* *fn8 State fighting feds in appeals court, The
Topeka Capital-Journal, Robert Boczkiewicz, January
22, 2000
* *fn9 Tindall v. Wayne County Friend of the
Court, 98-CV-73896-DT, Eastern District of Michigan,
Southern Division; 9/30/99
* *fn10 Child Support Collection Leads Divorced
Fathers to Sue the State of Michigan, Current Events
in Law - Online Section, Paul Reed, January 26, 2000
* *fn11 Michigan Court out of Control, Wayne
County FOC & Circuit Court Accused of Fraud and Abuse,
Sierra Times Exclusive, Franklin Frith, February 9,
* *fn12 Otterstatter v. Otterstatter, No. 99-1481
(Louisiana Court of Appeals)
* *fn13 Behnke v. Green-Behnke, No. C7-99-820
(Minnesota Court of Appeals)
* *fn14 Topp v. Topp, No. 1999CA0243 (Ohio Court
of Appeals, District 5): Relying on Singer v.
Dickinson, 63 Ohio St. 3d 408 (1992)
* *fn15 Current Population Reports, Series P-23,
No 173, 1989
* *fn16 GAO/HRD-92-39FS, January 9, 1992; page 19
* *fn17 BAD DADS [Dead beat vs. Dead broke dads],
ABC News program 20/20, John Stossel and Barbara
Walters, January 7, 2000.
* *fn18 GAO/HRD-92-39FS, January 9, 1992; page 19
* *fn19 Bureau of the Census, Statistical brief -
SB/95-16; June 1995
* *fn20 Divorced Fathers: Shattering the Myths,
Sanford Braver.
* *fn21 Statement of Nick Young, Division of Child
Support Enforcement; Statement of Geraldine Jensen,
Association for Children for Enforcement of Support,
Inc. March 16, 2000
* *fn22 3/99 U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Current
Population Report (P60-196 Child Support For Custodial
Mothers and Fathers: 1995), there are 11.6 Million
Custodial Mothers (85%).
* *fn23 Who Receives Child Support? Bureau of the
Census Statistical Brief, June 1995.
* *fn24 Although according to the data used in
that report, child support had been awarded for only
56% of all separated custodial parents. Part of the
lack of support orders however, can be explained by
the death of an ex-spouse, agreement not requiring a
court order, and other reasons. A significant part
however is simply because paternity has not been
* *fn25 Non-Custodial Parent's Report of Child
Support Payments, Braver, Sanford, Pamela J.
Fitzpatrick, and R. Curtis Bay, 1988, presented at the
Symposium "Adaptation of the Non-Custodial Parent:
Patterns Over Time" at the American Psychological
Association Convention, Atlanta, GA, August, 1988.
Compared Bureau of Census custodial parents reports
(approx. 70% received) with father survey (approx. 90%
* *fn26 The father of today's child support public
policy, his personal exploitation of the system, and
the fallacy of his "income shares" model, James R.
Johnston, August 1998.
* *fn27 Statement of Lynn Woolsey, M.C.,
CALIFORNIA, March 16, 2000.
* *fn28 Journal of Contemporary Policy Issues,
Garfinkle and Klawitter, 1992 - after instituting
mandatory wage witholding of child support in
Wisconsin, 10 pilot counties collected only 2.89% more
of what was owed than the ten control counties that
didn't garnish
* *fn29 Beating Up on "Deadbeat Dads", American
Spectator, Stephen Baskerville, August 20, 1999.
* *fn30 Donna Shalala, "National Child Abuse
Prevention Month" and Child Maltreatment 1994: Reports
from the States to the National Center on Child Abuse
and Neglect. Patrick Fagan, Heritage Foundation, THE
Dirty Little Secret: Abuse in Foster Care
* *fn31 id. at footnote 25 (Non-Custodial Parent's
Report of Child Support Payments)
* *fn32 id. at footnote 25 (Non-Custodial Parent's
Report of Child Support Payments)
* *fn33 Ronald Haskins, Andrew W. Dobelstein, John
S. Akin, and J. Brad Schwartz, Final Report, Office of
Child Support Enforcement, April 1, 1985.
* *fn34 The Divorce Revolution: The Unexpected
Social and Economic Consequences for Women and
Children in America, Lenore Weitzman, PhD, 1985.
Discredited because of simple mathematical errors in
her calculations and a fatally flawed methodology. She
did not admit to these mistakes for 11 years until
1996 when they were openly exposed in A re-evaluation
of the economic consequences of divorce. American
Sociological Review 61:528-36, Peterson, R.R. 1996. As
a result of Weitzman, a huge number of states -
virtually all - have upwardly revised their child
support guidelines by using and citing this work.
* *fn35 The Child Support Guideline Problem, Roger
F. Gay, MSc and Gregory J. Palumbo, Ph.D., May 6, 1998
* *fn36 Gay, Roger F. The Alimony Hidden in Child
Support, New Scientific Proof that Many Child Support
Awards are Too High, The Children's Advocate (NJCCR,
Box 316, Pluckemin, NJ 07978-0316), January, 1995,
Vol. 7 No. 5.
* *fn37 Parents Get Way to Lower Child Support,
Dow Jones Newswires, Greg Winter, July 28, 1999
* *fn38 Weitzman and Betson use the same approach
to estimating pre- and post-divorce standard of living
differences. Betson's paper provides a short list,
including items such as visitation and tax
consequences that are not included in his standard of
living analysis. For a critical review of Weitzman's
analysis, see the following. Abraham, Jed H., 1989,
The Divorce Revolution Revisited: A
Counter-Revolutionary Critique, Northern Illinois
University Law Review, Vol. 9, No. 2, p. 47. (as
quoted from New Equations for Calculating Child
Support and Spousal Maintenance With Discussion on
Child Support Guidelines, Roger Gay, July 20, 1994)
* *fn39 The Child Support Guideline Problem, Roger
F. Gay, MSc and Gregory J. Palumbo, Ph.D., May 6, 1998
* *fn40 Allocation of Income Within the Household,
Lazear, Edward P. and Robert T. Michael, University of
Chicago Press, 1988.
* *fn41 May 26, 1999 Memorandum from Richard J.
Byrd, P.C. to the Virginia Quadrennial Guideline
Review Panel. Analysis of the PSI Study and
Recommendation. (page 1 of 13) The Panel requested
this law firm to review the Guidelines and offer
commentary. Richard Byrd is also the Chairman of the
Family Law Section of the Fairfax Bar Association.
* *fn42 See Footnote 40 at page 2.
* *fn43 See Footnote 40 at page 3.
* *fn44 See Footnote 40 at pages 5-9
* *fn45 Allowed - CA, CT, IL, MS, MO, NJ, SC, TN,
WA,WY; Restricted - AL, CO, IO (to age 22 only?), MD,
MA, MI (to age 21 only?), MN, NY, OR (declared
unconstitutional, under appeal), TX, UT; Silent - AR,
* *fn46 The Making of a Deadbeat Dad, Robert W.
Braid, Trial Lawyer, March 1993. (as quoted from New
Equations for Calculating Child Support and Spousal
Maintenance With Discussion on Child Support
Guidelines, Roger Gay, July 20, 1994)
* *fn47 Melanie Cummings of Children's Rights
Council, illustrative Excel Spreadsheet to show the
actual and real distribution of "child" support.
* *fn48 In re Marriage of Hering, 84 Or App 360,
733 P2d 956 (1987). "the money is for the support and
welfare of the children, not for the enrichment of the
custodial parent."
* *fn49 When men lose the divorce game, Courts
often feel what's his is theirs, but what's hers is
hers, Alan Feigenbaum, CBS Marketwatch, December 27,
* *fn50 Kumho Tire, Inc. v. Carmichael, 119
S.Ct.1167 (1999) Justice Scalia, with whom Justice
O'Connor and Justice Thomas join, concurring opinion
clarified stating in part "Rather, it is discretion to
choose among reasonable means of excluding expertise
that is fausse and science that is junky...the Daubert
factors are not holy writ, in a particular case the
failure to apply one or another of them may be
unreasonable, and hence an abuse of discretion."
* *fn51 U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census
* *fn52 Center for Disease Control
* *fn53 Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p.
403-26, 1978
* *fn54 National Principals Association Report on
the State of High Schools
* *fn55 Rainbows for all God`s Children
* *fn56 U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report,
Sept 1988
* *fn57 Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas
Dept. of Corrections 1992
* *fn58 p.6, col.II, para. 6, lines 4 & 5, Census
Bureau P-60, #173, Sept 1991
* *fn59 Visitational Interference - A National
Study, Ms. J Annette Vanini, M.S.W. and Edward
Nichols, M.S.W. (September 1992)
* *fn60 p. 449, col. II, lines 3-6, (citing
Fulton) Frequency of visitation by Divorced Fathers;
Differences in Reports by Fathers and Mothers. Sanford
Braver et al, Am. J. of Orthopsychiatry, 1991.
* *fn61 Surviving the Breakup, Joan Kelly & Judith
Wallerstein, p. 125
* *fn62 Journal of Marriage & the Family, Vol. 51,
p. 1015, Seltzer, Shaeffer & Charing, November 1989
* *fn63 Man is jailed again in Child Support
battle, The [New Jersey] Star Ledger, Timothy
O'Conner, March 19, 2000.
* *fn64 LLR No. 9609060.CA Moss V. Moss, September
25, 1996
* *fn65 Blessing, Director, Arizona Department Of
Economic Security v. Freestone et al. [1997, US SupCt,
95-1441]. Child Support Enforcement is not a federal
right that can be used to force states to
substantially comply with Title IV-D.
* *fn66 Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 22
L.Ed.2d 600, 619, 89 S.Ct. 1322 (1969) citing
Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641, 651, n. 10, 16
L.Ed.2d 828, 836, 89 S.Ct. 1717 (1966) et. al.
* *fn67 Goss v. State of Illinois, 312 F2d. 1279
(US App Ct, Illinois, 1963)
* *fn68 Q: Is court-ordered child support doing
more harm than good? Yes: This engine of the divorce
industry is destroying families and the Constitution.
Insight Magazine, Stephen Baskerville, Vol. 15, No. 28
-- August 2, 1999.
* *fn69 Some 'Deadbeat' Dads Are Dead Broke, David
Crary, Associated Press, November 7, 1999
* *fn70 Pink and blue car boots shouldn't be
forced on police, Police Beat - Fred Reed, The
Washington Times, Jan. 10, 2000; page C2.
* *fn71 Father's protests deserve airing, Kathleen
Parker, USA Today, November 8, 1999
* *fn72 Anti-Male Bias in Family Courts blamed for
Man's Suicide, couldn't afford support payments,
backers say, Donna Laframboise, National Post, March
23, 2000
* *fn73 Throwaway Dads, Houghton Mifflin, Ross
Parke and Armin Brott, 1999.
* *fn74 Everyone Loses in the Daddy War, Wall
Street Journal, Stuart Miller, May 31, 1995, page
* *fn75 More for SRS Collections but less for
Children, Kansas is taking a larger percentage of the
child support payments it collects - and parents are
not happy about it. Wichita Eagle, Jennifer Comes Roy,
January 24, 2000

home | articles | guide | forums | chat | links |
search | attorneys | faq's | dictionary | contact |
terms | about | sitemap
Copyright © SPARC - A Non-Profit Parenting Advocacy

Divorce Support and Care Sites by mrindianajonesprm
[ Join Now | Ring Hub | Random | << Prev | Next >> ]
Visit a complete list of WebRing memberships here


Child Support is a letter of Manqué, NO CRIME- NO SLAVERY!

Posted by: "Brian or PJ"   thecourtwatcher

Tue Aug 8, 2006 1:37 pm (PST)


The state of _______ has no jurisdiction in this matter.

Cooper Vs. Aaron
> . 358 U.S. 1 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958). If a judge does not fully Comply
with the Constitution, then his orders are void, in re Sawyer, 124 U.S.
200 (1888), he/she is Without jurisdiction, & he/she has engaged in an
act or acts TREASON.

Question of Violation of Constitution; by a writ of attainder or letter
of Manqué.

Child support is neither authorized by Constitution nor is it a tax
levied on certain goods, commodities, and licenses. The statue of
limitations on any, none offence is 2 years, which has greatly expired.

1. Child support is neither authorized by Constitution nor is it a
tax levied on certain goods, commodities, and licenses.

2. The United States Constitution
<> forbids both
the federal and state governments from enacting bills of attainder, in
Article 1, Sections 9 and 10, respectively. It was considered an excess
or abuse of Royalty, and several of the grievances enumerated in the
Declaration of Independence
> could be characterized as such.

A. The general Welfare of the United State, and the Common Defense.

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,
Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,
Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Child Support is a letter of Manqué and reprisal to plunder the

A letter of marque and reprisal was an official who plundered, a private
person to take their assets, and was usually used to authorize private
parties to raid and capture merchant shipping of an enemy nation.

Section. 3.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules
and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to
the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so
construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any
particular State.

Article. 4

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption
of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under
this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made
in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made,
under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of
the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any
Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and
the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and
judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States,
shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but
no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any
Office or public Trust under the United States.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 31 > § 641

§ 641. Public money, property or records

Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or
the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of
any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of
any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made
under contract for the United States or any department or agency
thereof; or Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent
to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled,
stolen, purloined or converted—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years,
or both; but if the value of such property does not exceed the sum of
$1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
one year, or both. The word "value" means face, par, or market
value, or cost price, either wholesale or retail, whichever is greater.

Quest ion of Slavery without a trail by jury and without a conviction of
a crime.


A person cannot be ordered to be a slave, or be placed into debtors
prison except for being placed into jail for a crime. Common law, Civil
law, Equity or CONTRACT LAW is not crime, unless it becomes heinous
crime or an immoral crime.

Child support when no crime was committed is an order to commit a person
to slavery and to place them into debtors prison.

It is cruel and unusual punishment.

Amendment 8

Excessive bail shall not be required

Nor excessive fines imposed.

Nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Stripping a parent of their children is cruel and unusual to both the
child and parent
<> .

United States Constitution main page annotations

Amendment XIII

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.

Parental rights are so fundamental to the human condition so as to be
deemed inalienable. Termination of parental rights equals or exceeds the
detriment of criminal sanctions.

The "liberty interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of
their children is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty
interests" recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court. Troxel v. Granville,
527 U.S. 1069 (1999). Moreover, the companionship, care, custody, and
management of a parent over his or her child is an interest far more
precious than any property right. May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528, 533,
(1952). As such, the parent-child relationship is an important interest
that undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing
interest, protection. Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452
U.S. 18, 27 (1981).

Has there been an attempt at Parental termination:


Was there a threat you will be charged? Must be made within 24 hours of
the arrest of you or your children.

(1)G Yes G No Where any charges filed?


(2)G Yes G No Where you repaid for any defense or for the false arrest
of you and your children?


(3)G Yes G No Equity: Was there a contract you broke which would
mandate a Termination?


(4)G Yes G No Admiralty: Where you given a Jury trial, or where you
heard by a Judge alone? Who acted as Judge Jury and executioner. The
only way a Judge can act as such is to act as an Admiral, which leaves
him without jurisdiction.


(4)G Yes G No Admiralty: Was there informed consent to the waiving of
your rights?


While officials are going around declaring that it is "civil"
and denying the opportunity to be heard and violating Constitutional

Constitution: Questions,

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of
Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America.

TITLE 28 > PART IV> CHAPTER 85 > § 1343
> .
Sec. 1343. Civil rights and elective franchise
(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any
civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person:

(1) To recover damages for injury to his person or property, or because
of the deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United
States, by any act done in furtherance of any conspiracy mentioned in
section 1985 of Title 42;

(2) To recover damages from any person who fails to prevent or to aid
in preventing any wrongs mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42 which he
had knowledge were about to occur and power to prevent;

(3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute,
ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or
immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act
of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons
within the jurisdiction of the United States;

(4) To recover damages or to secure equitable or other relief
under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights,
including the right to vote.

(b) For purposes of this section--

(1) the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a State;


(2) any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District
of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of