Posted on 03/12/2015 7:37:26 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
I saw this headline at Newsalert from a CNS News article and went over to read it:
(CNSNews.com) – Seventy percent of American males between the ages of 20 and 34 are not married, and many live in a state of “perpetual adolescence” with ominous consequences for the nation’s future, says Janice Shaw Crouse, author of “Marriage Matters.”
“Far too many young men have failed to make a normal progression into adult roles of responsibility and self-sufficiency, roles generally associated with marriage and fatherhood,” Crouse, the former executive director of the Beverly LaHaye Institute, wrote in a recent Washington Times oped.
The high percentage of bachelors means bleak prospects for millions of young women who dream about a wedding day that may never come. “It’s very, very depressing,” Crouse told CNSNews.com.
It seems that Crouse and her crowd are watching too many Say Yes to the Dress episodes. So what matters is that women’s dreams are shattered? What about the bleak prospects for millions of men across the country who get very little legal or psychological protection from marriage? Now that’s what’s very, very depressing. Change that and maybe more men will be interested.
And your outstanding credentials are...?
If you fail to see the connection between the two then there is little to discuss. When an increasing number of post-Christian Americans are cohabitating instead of marrying, then certainly the divorce outcomes have to be examined as one of several reasons. As far as your post above, churches should completely separate their concept of marriage from that of Caesar; Caesar’s contracts & conditions are what keeps many away from it.
The church's concept of marriage can do little to protect children financially at divorce. Civil law will always be necessary. It should protect minors; in practice, it enriches many in the divorce industry, such as attorneys, mediators, forensic accountants, child therapists who may be drawn upon to give testimony, et cetera.
You are way behind the times.
Child support is alimony.
The two alimonies are Child Support and Spousal Support.
It is more typical to award just Child Support these days. The womens groups have seen to that.
The payor has to pay the taxes on Child Support. the payee pays the taxes on spousal support.
Also Child Support rates are set so high, that there is often no additional room to set spousal support.
With one child, the base amount is set at 25% of net income. The amount rises roughly 5% per additional child.
State and Federal law set a ‘limit’ on the maximum support that can be ordered. But courts are inventive and find ways to wriggle around those limits. Louisiana law limits the amount to 50% of net income. federal law to 60% plus 5% for arrears for most. 50/55 if a second family to support.
By cohabitating instead of marrying, a couple can avoid some, but not all of the hassle of thetoxic court system.
They can also gain certain federal benefits and avoid themarriage tax penalty.
The institution of marriage is dead. It has been killed by greedy women and their legislatures.
In 2010, we had to defend againsta bill that sought to make it a crime to be a day late or a dollar short on ‘child support’. The bill sailed through the Senate, and was only killed by the House committee.
Well, i might have kept your a__ from being labeled a ‘potential child abductor’
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Child_Abduction_Prevention_Act
What I mean is that they it matters less to men whether their legal marital status is divorced , when they are separated. Men are better able to live with the ambiguity.
Cohabitation avoids alimony & divorce; occasionally a news story is run trying to show the Bible Belt as less “conservative” than the liberal northeast because of a high number of divorces; the stories are flawed because marriage itself (and therefore divorce) are disappearing in the northeast - not because of the implied idea that Yankees don’t divorce due to the strengths of their marriages or religious faith.
Marriage doesn’t protect children in a divorce; paternity does (the marriage, or even cohabitation, isn’t necessary to receive child support - it is the law). The civil law simply transfers wealth from the former husband to his former wife. While they may happen in the opposite direction, those are the exception, not the rule (otherwise women wouldn’t be chasing men down for marriage).
I see (though I don’t know how that could be verified).
Someone paying child support is entitled to ask for receipts on how it is spent; they can’t do the same for “spousal support”.
You’re right about marriage being dead, as well as the perps.
Just telling my experience.
Actually, no. Child support is not alimony, and alimony is not child support. There are various kinds of each type of support, but the two categories are different; and the most obvious reason the courts make a distinction is that they are taxed differently.
The percentage of income cited on standard child support schedules varies from one state to another, as previously noted “a patchwork of standards.” Here are some of the various rates in several states for a person with a net income of $3,000 per month ($36,000 annually) for one child:
Washington State 561
Louisiana 548
Colorado 720
Alabama 587
Ohio 514
Rhode Island 540
New Jersey 447
Arkansas 521
N. Carolina 571
New York 510
As you can see, the rates vary greatly and the way they are applied not only varies from state to state, but also may vary based on negotiations between the two parties to the divorce, with additions or subtractions based on items such as who pays for health care coverage, who provides babysitting (nursery school fees vs. grandma volunteering) and a host of other issues such as braces, summer camp, college education or many other variables.
I’ve been trying to get across to you that one divorce case or even the standards of the law in one state does not apply to the entire nation’s court cases. While you may have a point that some courts make an assumption that the woman will be the primary custodian, not all courts nor all judges do this. And no state can bar any father or mother from suing for custody or for an alteration in custody orders as long as the child is a minor. Even O J Simpson got custody after his imprisonment for a civil finding (sued by the Goldman famlly after the criminal case failed) of having murdered the mother of his children.
There are no winners in divorce when children are part of the marriage. Everyone — man, woman, child and extended family, even the neighbors, church, schoolmates and community tax base — loses something vital. Claiming that women have ruined the system is like anti-war protestors blaming the soldiers for a war. The legislatures and bar associations bear most of the blame. Virtually no individual goes into court with his or her personal divorce tragedy in order to run a test case to establish revolutionary precedents in American law. Lawyers might try to use cases for that reason; their motivation is also not likely to be “for the children” as much as it is for their own bottom line, lawyer lifestyles, summer homes at the beach and their own divorce battles.
Obviously you have an axe to grind, and while I have been posting in general terms about the overall trends and the exceptions thereof, you have been railing in absolute, black&white polemics, leveling personal insults and trying to make your posts believable because you firmly believe them. It’s not working.
Ludicrous. You don't know anything about me or my life, quite clearly. This site has rules about personal attacks. Check yourself, sir.
Tis not even close to being a personal attack.
Read the proposed law.
Under it, everyone can be accused of being a ‘potential child abductor’.
You are confused.
Alimony is an obligation to financially support another person.
Alimony can be for:
- Spousal support
- Child support
- or even parental (or grandparental support)
For example:
“Art. 229. Reciprocal alimentary duties of ascendants and descendants.
Children are bound to maintain their father and mother and other ascendants, who are in need,
and the relatives in the direct ascending line are likewise bound to maintain their needy descendants,
this obligation being reciprocal.
This reciprocal obligation is limited to life’s basic necessities of food, clothing, shelter, and health care, and arises only upon proof of inability to obtain these necessities by other means or from other sources.
Amended by Acts 1970, No. 436, §2; Acts 1972, No. 668, §1; Acts 1979, No. 249, §1.”
Actually, no. Child support is not alimony, and alimony is not child support. There are various kinds of each type of support, but the two categories are different; and the most obvious reason the courts make a distinction is that they are taxed differently.
The percentage of income cited on standard child support schedules varies from one state to another, as previously noted “a patchwork of standards.” Here are some of the various rates in several states for a person with a net income of $3,000 per month ($36,000 annually) for one child:
Washington State 561
Louisiana 548
Colorado 720
Alabama 587
Ohio 514
Rhode Island 540
New Jersey 447
Arkansas 521
N. Carolina 571
New York 510
As you can see, the rates vary greatly and the way they are applied not only varies from state to state, but also may vary based on negotiations between the two parties to the divorce, with additions or subtractions based on items such as who pays for health care coverage, who provides babysitting (nursery school fees vs. grandma volunteering) and a host of other issues such as braces, summer camp, college education or many other variables.
I’ve been trying to get across to you that one divorce case or even the standards of the law in one state does not apply to the entire nation’s court cases. While you may have a point that some courts make an assumption that the woman will be the primary custodian, not all courts nor all judges do this. And no state can bar any father or mother from suing for custody or for an alteration in custody orders as long as the child is a minor. Even O J Simpson got custody after his imprisonment for a civil finding (sued by the Goldman famlly after the criminal case failed) of having murdered the mother of his children.
There are no winners in divorce when children are part of the marriage. Everyone — man, woman, child and extended family, even the neighbors, church, schoolmates and community tax base — loses something vital. Claiming that women have ruined the system is like anti-war protestors blaming the soldiers for a war. The legislatures and bar associations bear most of the blame. Virtually no individual goes into court with his or her personal divorce tragedy in order to run a test case to establish revolutionary precedents in American law. Lawyers might try to use cases for that reason; their motivation is also not likely to be “for the children” as much as it is for their own bottom line, lawyer lifestyles, summer homes at the beach and their own divorce battles.
Obviously you have an axe to grind, and while I have been posting in general terms about the overall trends and the exceptions thereof, you have been railing in absolute, black&white polemics, leveling personal insults and trying to make your posts believable because you firmly believe them. It’s not working.
While it is true that each state has their own laws regarding child support, it would be extremely incorrect to call it a ‘patchwork of standards’.
The states laws are mandated by Federal regulation.
The states laws are reviewed by the Federal government.
The Federal government is currently proposing updates to their regulations as set by the Federal law. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=CMS-2014-0146-0001
The laws for each state were set by each state by a vote of their legislature.
Moreover, the same firm is responsible for the setting of the child support laws in mosts states. That was done by a handful of people. That firm is/was “PSI - Policy Studies Inc”.
The particular person who was behind all of the proposals for Louisiana’s laws was:
“Jane Venohr, Ph.D., Research Associate
jvenohr@centerforpolicyresearch.org
Dr. Venohr has over 20 years of experience assessing and researching Medicaid, child care, child support, and other health and human services and workforce programs. She is the nation’s leading expert on child support guidelines and has worked with over 25 states to develop and update guidelines and present them to legislatures.”
Using the ‘claimed’ BASIC support amounts, and excluding the two outliers, the alleged low of New Jersey and the alleged high of Colorado.
The results show the that average BASIC child support amount is $544/mo.
The median is also the same as the average amount at $544/mo.
The standard deviation for the results is $27.99/mo.
So for the same income amount, the proposed BASIC child support award is essentially the same for most States. This is because the same firm was hired to develop the child support guidelines for most states.
Let us sort the ‘claimed’ amounts of BASIC support you cited.
New Jersey............ 447
New York............... 510
Ohio....................... 514
Arkansas................ 521
Rhode Island.......... 540
Louisiana............... 548
Washington State.. 561
N. Carolina............ 571
Alabama................ 587
Colorado............... 720
You are confused.
The purpose behind the table was to eliminate the ‘additions and subtractions based on who pays for health care coverage, babysitting, etc’.
To say these are based on ‘negotiations between the parties’ is ludicrous. These are often just mandated/dictated by the courts to the parties. The parties frequently have little to no say.
As fare as ‘subtractions’ go. The only subtraction allowed by Louisiana law is if the child has income.
Everything else is an ADDITION.
The typical largest addition is for daycare. That would add about $280 to $300/month to the award (for one child)
A person with a $3,000/month income has a tax liability of approximately $633.44/mo. The breakdown on that is $310.00/mo Federal tax; $93.94/mo Louisiana tax; and $229.50/mo FICA.
So their net income is approximately $2,366.56/mo.
Deducting the $548/mo basic child support obligation, that persons take home pay is now $1,818.56/mo (So the $17.30/hr income is a net $10.49/hr)
If we add on the $280/mo for day care, then take home income becomes $1,538.57/mo ($8.88/hr)
Health care is mandatory, so lets tack on another $100/mo for the health car.
Net income is now $1,438.56/mo. ($8.30/hr)
So what else would you like to tack on? Keep going. The courts are allowed to. They will be going for the cap of 50% of net income, so an order of $1,183.28/mo is probably likely.
P.S. Most states do not allow for Child Support for College Education. Only about 17 States do so.
We stopped that proposal in Louisiana back in, goodness, I think it was 2005.
It turned out that Rep. McVea’s sister’s child support of $5,000/month was set to expire. So he sought to change the law so that the support could continue PLUS COLLEGE EXPENSES.
Fortunately, he lost.
Since there is NO cap on the ‘extraordinary expenses’, these expenses can bring the order up to take all of the persons income as child support. Especially a low income person.
The Federal government says that a typical order on a low income person is typically 60% of net income.
The Feds also say that most of the arrears in child support orders are being accrued against people with income of less than $10,000/year.
How on earth can anyone live on $10,000.00 a year?
.
Please do not post misinformation.
1) The majority of courts across this nation tend to make the women the primary custodial parent and have done so for the past thirty to forty years. The situation has improved slightly in recent years, but the rampant discrimination against men still exists.
2a) O.J. Simpson was declared not guilty in his criminal trial. Since the mother was dead, of course he was granted primary custody at that point.
2b) O.J. Simpson was not granted primary custody while the mother was alive. That was one of the issues between them. They used the fact that he was at her open door hollering for her to bring down his kids because it was his time with them against him in the criminal trial.
2c) O.J. Simpson was NOT jailed in the civil trial. He had very large financial award leveled against him. But he was not jailed as a result of that civil trial.
2d) O.J. Simpson was jailed as a result of a dispute between himself and a ‘fan’ who had property that O.J. considered belonging to him.
2e) Citing the O.J. Simpson case does not help your position.
3) Yes, States allow the parents to sue of child custody once. Once it is settled, changing the outcome of the case is difficult. So yes, a parent can be effectively barred from suing for custody.
4) The Federal government rarely intervenes in custody cases. They have a “Rooker-Feldman” doctrine. Divorce is a State court issue.
“I’ve been trying to get across to you that one divorce case or even the standards of the law in one state does not apply to the entire nation’s court cases.”
“While you may have a point that some courts make an assumption that the woman will be the primary custodian, not all courts nor all judges do this.”
“And no state can bar any father or mother from suing for custody or for an alteration in custody orders as long as the child is a minor.”
“Even O J Simpson got custody after his imprisonment for a civil finding (sued by the Goldman famlly after the criminal case failed) of having murdered the mother of his children.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.