Bill would revamp child-support formula

Minneapolis Star Tribune ^ | 3-12-05 | Jean Hopfensperger

[Rakkasan1]

Minnesota's system for calculating child support, now used for more than 265,000 children, is once again the focus of a proposed overhaul at the Legislature.

A bill that would base child support levels on the incomes of both parents, not just the non-custodial parent's, passed its first hurdle Thursday when it cleared a Senate subcommittee.

[Piquaboy]

Minnesota, the land of 10,000 taxes.

[Shortwave]

The current system is typical Feminazi Man Hating policy. My state bases it on both incomes as it should be. Unfortunately, my state is a welfare wasteland so many are on the system anyway.

[jurroppi1]

About bloody time I say! I'm one of the few lucky ones with a Hortis/Valento CS order, and I had to fight long and hard for that. My ex appealed and I won - just had a coworker tell me he was railroaded in the same county as me a few months ago, doesn't get to see his kids anymore and the judge won't do a thing about it...

[CindyDawg]

Without further info this may not be bad. There seems to be a trend around here to have babies by different daddies and filing for child support. A woman with 3 or 4 kids gets full child support from all the fathers.

[queenkathy]

I know a woman who has 4 children by 4 different fathers. She works and makes a decent living on her own and each father pays based on their income. She's pulling in good $$. I think between the 4 she is drawing 1500 a month plus what she brings in. State pays for her child care too plus food stamps and medicaid.

[Piquaboy]

Good for you. It is about time that you people stop getting railroaded.

[lil'bit]

Though I'm not in MN. the bill could really hurt some as well.

Not so Hypothetical case: Un-married couple splits after having 1 child. Father (23) is order to pay 50.00 per week based on his part-time 20 hour weekly income.

Mother (21) has a full time job 40-50 hours week & works another part time job.

She ends up making more than he does by working triple the hours.

$50.00 child support will not cover 1 week day care & the mother has to work more to support them. Father had an apartment with other singles to make his expenses lower.

Is it really fair to base support on 2 incomes in this case? Mother is not a baby machine and is not on welfare

[intenseracer]

Why is the child NOT staying with the father when he is not working? That would cut down on childcare cost and require him to step up and be a father.

[Montfort]

Not so Hypothetical case: Un-married couple splits after having 1 child. Father (23) is order to pay 50.00 per week based on his part-time 20 hour weekly income.

Wouldn't a judge impute income from a full-time job to the guy? I don't think judges simply go with what the numbers were. The judge can decide that you should be able to make a certain amount. In the case of the guy with a part time job, I am guessing a judge would assume that guy could get get 40 hours at the same hourly rate, or something like that.

I don't know, though. What do you all think?

[rockrr]

Not so Hypothetical indeed.

You are spot on, Montfort. It would be atypical for ANY "family" court not to impute the earning potential of the host (I use the term "Host" instead of the outdated "Father").

The female would simply avail herself of any one of the myriad state sponsored child detention zones (otherwise known as childcare facilities), and the state tacks the added expense onto the back of the Host.

This bumps the support to 49% of the Hosts net income.

The Host responds by getting into a bar fight and spending two weeks in jail. All the while that he is cooling his heels, the support tab continues to accrue.

Upon release from jail, the Host is immediately rearrested, this time for non payment of support.

The beleaguered defendant appears before the judge (speaking in his own defense because this is civil court, and consequently the Host isn't entitled to a Public Defender).

The confused and impassioned Host misspeaks before the judge, earning him a three day Contempt of Court judgment.

Once again in jail, his only crime irresponsible copulation, the Host lashes out at one of the multitude of blacks that are incarcerated, earning himself a savage beating by the rest of the black prisoners, and a trip to the hospital.

Ten days later the Host is released. Broke, battered, unemployed, evicted from the motel room that was his "home", he.....

Oh, that's right, this was supposed to be a "hypothetical"

I think you get the idea.

[jurroppi1]

Also, you can bet your bottom CS dollar that all judges will have the same levity they always have had in entering orders for CS and for custody, and they will arrange it to suit the custodial parent over the desires or needs of either parent as it always has been. Typically, the mother is the custodial parent, or has more control over the custody of the children than the father does, again, as it always has been since at least the early 80's in MN anyhow. This will, generally speaking, keep hypotheticals where the mother is detrimentally served by a court order for CS to a minimum if not nil. More often the hypothetical works in the opposite direction where the father has to support the child and mother at a higher standard of living than that which they would've enjoyed were the marriage or relationship to stay intact. This IS the typical experience in MN - I know way too many CS obligors and family court lawyers that will agree to believe otherwise, plus I've been living through it myself...

[lil'bit]

The father is only allowed very supervised visitation, if/when he wants. The child is not allowed to be alone with him because of mistreatment.

[lil'bit]

"The female would simply avail herself of any one of the myriad state sponsored child detention zones (otherwise known as childcare facilities), and the state tacks the added expense onto the back of the Host."

In order to be eligable for this in TN, the mother would have to make only x amount of dollars a week, and evidently 200 a week plus the sparodic to non existant $50.00 a week CS puts her way over the top for childcare payment help whether it's state or private.

[lil'bit]

OOps I meant the last reply to be to post 11, sorry.