Logic Behind Child Support Guidelines

Minnesota Public Radio ^ | March 11, 2005 | Scott Booth

[right2parent]

Attempts to portray the title IV-D Child Support Enforcement Program as a means to distribute income between separated families, regardless of a documented public pecuniary interest is misguided and contrary to the stated purpose of the program. While the legislation in this article is specific to Minnesota's program, all the states have similar schemes in place, and stink of an overreach of authority.

[sauropod]

It is a public obligation of a welfare agency that forms the basis for determining whether, and to what amount an accused absent parent is responsible for reimbursement and to contribute towards relieving the government of this obligation.

I see now. It is the obligation of private citizens to fund the "public obligation of a welfare agency" regardless of his rights, and at the whim of a gynocracy (family law court system).

Also regardless of his ability to pay.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Logic Behind Child Support Guidelines

Greed...

[SoVaDPJ]

There is so much I could say on this, I'd be here all day. Suffice it to say SoVa Jr's father paid not one thin dime. Mr. SoVa however, has been pushed nearly to the brink of financial insolvency by the former Mrs. SoVa and her attorneys. She has a brand new house and a new Lexus. Mr. SoVa makes four times what she does, and pays her nearly 30%. Then the IRS says she gets to claim them on her taxes, and Mr. SoVa can't, unless she gives permission. Guess who claims them?

Having been to the court hearings, and told by Mr. SoVa's attorney that the former Mrs. SoVa's attorney was the former law partner of the presiding judge, and discovering that there's nothing that can be done about the situation--he has to pay ex's attorney's fees--we have discovered that it's cheaper to bend over and bring your own lube.

[FreedomAvatar]

My married friends just do not understand what it is like to have to ask the government permission to take a lower paying job; to live in fear of bankruptcy and prison.

It's a great system if you're on the winning side. You get tax-free cash to spend on anything you want.

[Paul C. Jesup]

we have discovered that it's cheaper to bend over and bring your own lube.

No it's cheaper for men to not get married.

I'd rather die alone, than die a slave.

[markman46]

It's a great system if you're on the winning side. You get tax-free cash to spend on anything you want.

been there and done that, oh and they don't have to spent it on the kids either.

[right2parent]

You could also motion for the order to be vacated on jurisdiction grounds. Any ruling is immediately appealable to district court, leaving this judge behind. If the issue is limited to jurisdiction, rather than "fairness," the argument becomes simpler, and the agency is put in a defensive posture. The burden is on them to show they have authority to intervene. I Mr. SoVa had no opportunity to contest the validity of the application, the order is void for want of due process, even if there was an opportunity to challenge the order after the fact. Hennepin County v. Hernandez C0-96-997 (Minn App 1996)

[right2parent]

Sorry - link: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mn&vol=apppub%5C9610%5C997&invol=1

[SoVaDPJ]

Mr. SoVa picked wrong the first time. I think he'd argue your position there. For that matter, so would the first Mr. SoVa.

[SoVaDPJ]

Actually, we attempted that. She then moved the children to a very expensive and very anti-father state. That's when the judge explained that because of the income disparity--which doesn't include what she gets from Mr. SoVa, of course--we get to pay all of her legal costs, win or lose. She uses her lawyer as a psychotherapist, and he apparently encourages this behavior.

Meanwhile, we just wait for the last 18th birthday. Or for her to choke on the food we put in her mouth.

[Graybeard58]

No it's cheaper for men to not get married.

Married or not doesn't have a lot to do with it. Even an unmarried parent is responsible for the support of his/her children

[LongElegantLegs]

*gasp* Surely, you're not suggesting that men abstain from having sex with untrustworthy women ?? /sarc

[Graybeard58]

you're not suggesting that men abstain from having sex with untrustworthy women

It works both ways.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Married or not doesn't have a lot to do with it. Even an unmarried parent is responsible for the support of his/her children

You missed my point.

[LongElegantLegs]

It works both ways.
True; But in the current climate, men have much more to lose.

[SoVaDPJ]

I dunno--I know some pretty stupid women who are going to pay for at least 18 years with no help.

Of course, I'm smarter now.

[tnlibertarian]

Meanwhile, we just wait for the last 18th birthday.

Amen. 10 down, 8 to go. (Years, not kids) What are the chances of, when the child is old enough to essentially decide for themselves, of his choosing to live with you? That's the other option I will be pursuing in 2-3 years.

[SoVaDPJ]

Without going into much detail, let's just say Mom is exceptionally talented at few things, but emotional blackmail is her forte.