17
   

Child Support as Politics.

 
 
Reply Mon 5 Sep, 2011 07:00 am
I am NOT campaigning here as I just want to discuss such things, but I am a candidate in my Maryland for the US Senate 2012, and if I win then my politics will affect the entire USA.

My point and platform is to radically reform the Child Support laws under federal mandate.

As like the law says the c/s must be taken as a percentage but instead the State Courts only order fixed set amounts which is severely abusive and detrimental to all concerned.

Thereby the laws have unjustly turned parenting into a crime and turned parents into criminals and it destroys the family unit and alienates the children.

The system needs to be stopped or dramatically reformed and yet most people are just determined to pretend that the injustices and ruin are just acceptable conditions.

Child Support claims to be helping children when it is really just playing politics with our society.

So I was wondering if anyone here has any input onto this subject?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 17 • Views: 10,650 • Replies: 193

 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Sep, 2011 07:07 am
Same in Australia. The Child Support system seems to be aimed squarely at further alienating non-custodial parents from their children, as well as driving deeper wedges between both parents.

Never have I heard a reasonable explanation offered for this catastrophic injustice, but I often hear that the whole system is "coming under review".

Fat lotta good that will do when people are topping themselves over this, and sometimes taking their own children with them.
boomerang
 
  5  
Reply Mon 5 Sep, 2011 07:10 am
@JP Cusick,
I think when you decide to have a child that you have an obligation to support them until they become adults.

Failure to do so is disastrous, ruinous, and an injustice to the child.
PUNKEY
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Sep, 2011 07:12 am
What State courts set 'fixed' amounts?

How do they determine the amount.

Collection is the issue, as I see it, at least in my state.

I don't think you should base your campaign on this issue. You will alienate at least half of the voters.
IRFRANK
 
  4  
Reply Mon 5 Sep, 2011 08:14 am
@JP Cusick,
I am going out on a limb here. Have you had to pay child support that you thought was excessive?

Having children and not contributing to their welfare should be criminal and is a burden on society.

I paid child support for 13 years. Up to 1/3 of my income. I never saw it as a burden.

To be fair, I may have missed your point. Your position is not very clear.

BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Sep, 2011 08:43 am
@IRFRANK,
That fine Frank however in the US a woman and the woman alone had the right to decide to carry a child to term or not to carry a child to term.

If she then decides to carry to term she then had placed a man who might be a one night sperm donator under an 18 years finance obligation with no recourse on his part.

My feelings is as long as the woman had the complete say so in carrying a child to term men who are not in a marriage or other long terms relationships with a woman should had the right to timely informed the woman that he does not wish any rights or obligations concerning the child to be.

His whole financial obligation when would be to give her half the cost of an abortion and she could then knowing that no more aid is coming from the man she can decided if she wish to carry the child to term or not under those conditions.

We had laws now that are so crazy that a woman who was convicted of statutory rape is able to demand child support from her victim after he reach legal adulthood.
JP Cusick
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Sep, 2011 09:15 am
@Builder,
Builder wrote:


Never have I heard a reasonable explanation offered for this catastrophic injustice,


I do not know just how "reasonable" this explanation is, but it goes like this:

The idea comes from the idea of spanking a child to teach the child right from wrong, and the gov / the law sees itself as the big Daddy or big Momma who has to discipline its citizens into doing what they believe to be right and not what they see as wrong.

As such the Child Support laws have little to nothing to do with actually supporting the children but rather to punish the parents.

The Gov and the law (or Law makers) see our societies as deteriorating along with single parenting and fewer marriages and more divorces and mixed up children, so the law is like giving spankings to the parents as the big Daddy gov uses the Child Support system to punish the parents.

When put under scrutiny then the Child Support extortion and injustices are alienating the children from their parents, and it alienates the 2 parents from each other, and it is just blind stupid to continue the senseless ideal of punishing parents through the evil Child Support laws.

Therefore the reasoning is that the law only knows how to use brute force against the population, and that brute force is fine against violent criminals and terrorist but it is foolish dumb to use brute force against parents to improve their parenting as that can never succeed.

This is the way that I understand the motive behind the senseless destructive Child Support laws.
JP Cusick
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Sep, 2011 09:25 am
@boomerang,
boomerang wrote:

I think when you decide to have a child that you have an obligation to support them until they become adults.

Failure to do so is disastrous, ruinous, and an injustice to the child.


We must wonder where such an idea comes from, as it surely must have been the 11th commandment which God forgot to write in stone.

And that "obligation of support" only means the Child Support payment of cash money and not about parenting.

The real obligation is that the two (2) parents will stay together and raise their children together without any regard to their money. Especially when poor parents have poor children.

The idea that one parent can take the child(ren) away from the other parent and then demand cash money in Child Support is not morally sound.

Taking the child away from their parent (or away from one of their parents) is what causes the ruin to the child.
ehBeth
 
  3  
Reply Mon 5 Sep, 2011 09:45 am
@JP Cusick,
JP Cusick wrote:

Taking the child away from their parent (or away from one of their parents) is what causes the ruin to the child.


This assumes that at least one of the parents has the ability to be a good parent.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Sep, 2011 09:46 am
@JP Cusick,
JP Cusick wrote:


As like the law says



perhaps you could consider a grammar check
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Mon 5 Sep, 2011 09:47 am
@JP Cusick,
JP Cusick wrote:
if I win then my politics will affect the entire USA.


looks like you're assuming a bit about the power of one senator
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Sep, 2011 09:48 am
@PUNKEY,
Has the original poster answered Punkey's questions?


PUNKEY wrote:

What State courts set 'fixed' amounts?

How do they determine the amount.

ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Sep, 2011 09:50 am
@JP Cusick,
JP Cusick wrote:

then the Child Support extortion and injustices are alienating the children from their parents


if Child Support requirements are alienating the children from the parents, then there was something wrong with the relationship to begin with.

Parents need to look at their parenting approach/skills before looking at any other group or individual to blame for the alienation.
boomerang
 
  4  
Reply Mon 5 Sep, 2011 10:56 am
@JP Cusick,
I don't think god has anything to do with it.

I agree that it's nice when people stay together and raise their children together. That doesn't always happen. When the parents can't make it work the child shouldn't be the one to suffer.

Taking children away from immature and irresponsible parents often saves the child.

If a parent isn't willing to support their child then the taxpayers often have to step in and fill that role. I want to make sure children are fed, housed, clothed and educated so I don't complain about my tax dollars going to support them but when my tax dollars go to support them because their parents don't acknowledge their own financial responsibility to their offspring I have no qualms about calling "not fair".
boomerang
 
  3  
Reply Mon 5 Sep, 2011 10:59 am
@BillRM,
I kind of agree with you and wish it was that simple.

I just can't see sitting down with a kid wanting to know who their dad is and explaining "He wanted me to have an abortion and I didn't want to so we signed a contract saying he didn't really exist to you. Sorry."

BTW -- I know two women that wanted abortions but agreed to carry the child to term and let the father raise the child. In both cases the women pay child support.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Sep, 2011 11:07 am
@boomerang,
Quote:
my tax dollars go to support them because their parents don't acknowledge their own financial responsibility to their offspring I have no qualms about calling "not fair".


When you tell women that they can kicked their husbands out of their lives for any reason or no reason and yet keep a large percent of the man income you are promoting broken relationships.

Hell when you tell them that they can find a sperm donor with a good income at the local bar and the state will seized a large percent of the men incomes for you that is promoting single parents households.
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  8  
Reply Mon 5 Sep, 2011 11:36 am
@JP Cusick,
I took this example from your website
Quote:
If the separated parent’s salary base (disposable income) is $300. per week and the child support garnishment is $75. (based as 25% of the fixed amount of $300.) then when the parent misses half of a work week (being sick or accident, or whatever reason) then the parent’s disposable income would be $150. and so the garnishment would be 25% which is $37.50 based on the above mentioned 45 C.F.R. section 302.56(C) (2), because the parent’s specific number income is to result in the computation of the child support obligation, but the Child Support Administration does the collection incorrectly. At present using the agency’s present policy in that case example of a parent’s disposable income going down to $150. then the garnishment stays the same at $75. which is increased to 50% of that base number which then greatly exceeds the original percentage of the Court Order and thereby violates the Federal guidelines and the federal Consumer Credit Protection Act (CCPA) U.S.C.A. Title 15 Chapter 41 Subchapter II § 1673. Restriction on garnishment, link HERE,


So in essence you're saying that if the child support paying parent is
sick and cannot meet his/her salary, then the child support has to be lowered accordingly, all the while the kid(s) still need to be fed and
clothed, despite the parent being unable to work full time for whatever
reason. Is this fair to the children who are bereaved of their well being?

Which brings me to my next question: have you ever considered the
additional government workforce that would be needed in determining who was sick/unable to meet their full child support obligations at one
time or another in order to lower their support payments? It will cost
you twice as much in labor cost if not more.

We're not finished though: what about the parent who is out the
child support money due to lesser support payments? What if they cannot
feed their children, what if they cannot pay the rent, what if they cannot
pay their children's healthcare payments?

Have you allocated enough funds for the state of Maryland to support
these families who will be negatively affected by your child support plan?
Have you?

It's like you wanting to bake a cake with only 2 ingredients - a recipe
for disaster!!
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Sep, 2011 11:51 am
@CalamityJane,
So if a person is sick and can not pay the amount of child support order it is a great help to the child or children to lock him away at 20 k plus a year of taxpayer expense until he can find perhaps find some family member to loan him the funds?
CalamityJane
 
  4  
Reply Mon 5 Sep, 2011 12:00 pm
@BillRM,
No! It should be a accumulated debt. Does the bank give you a break in your mortgage when you're sick for a few weeks?
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Mon 5 Sep, 2011 12:20 pm
@CalamityJane,
Is the idea helping the child or children or getting the maximum amount of funds out of a man?

If a man in a ongoing relationship loss earning power the couple tighten their belts and if and when his earning power return he does not owe his wife back income!!!!
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Child Support as Politics.
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/22/2019 at 11:00:43