Posted on 01/28/2006 8:21:45 AM PST by buccaneer81
Unite for child support Time spent with kids doesn't cut cost of rearing them, so state shouldn't use it as reason to slash payments
Published on: 01/27/06
The women in the state Senate — all seven of them — united this week across party lines and stood up for mothers and kids. Their 35 peers in the House must do the same if Georgia is to limit the damage to single mothers and their children caused by a bill changing how child-support payments are calculated in Georgia.
Under the bill, noncustodial parents can reduce the amount of child support they pay by spending a certain amount of time with their children. The proposal before the Senate set the threshold for the parenting time credit at 91 days a year — the equivalent of 13 weeks. But by joining together, female senators were able to raise that annual threshold to 121 days.
It was a small but significant victory in a father-driven rewrite of state child support laws that will lower basic awards for middle- and upper-income families. In the House, those trying to preserve the higher threshold will face a nimble and stubborn adversary in the bill's prime mover, state Rep. Earl Ehrhart (R-Powder Springs), who is unlikely to budge without political pressure.
However, this is an election year, and a collective stand by female House members — Republican and Democratic alike — could apply that necessary pressure. Gov. Sonny Perdue cannot afford to hand either of his possible Democratic opponents for governor, Lt. Gov. Mark Taylor or Secretary of State Cathy Cox, a ready-made TV commercial: "Every woman in the Georgia House of Representatives — Democrat and Republican alike — voted to protect child support for Georgia's kids, but the Republican leadership voted 'no.' "
Ehrhart has fought for years to overturn Georgia's support laws, claiming that they require child support payments that exceed the actual costs of child rearing. He had no evidence that Georgia awards were out of whack, only complaints from parents paying those awards. In fact, based on the available data, Georgia awards appear in line with the rest of the country.
Last year, Ehrhart succeeded in finally revamping the state's system for calculating support. However, the complex bill lacked specifics and contained legal gaffes, so a commission was appointed this past summer to review it and fill in the blanks, including creating an economic table estimating what it costs people of various incomes to raise children in Georgia. The table is critical because it's how judges will set support.
Commission members, notably Superior Court Judge Louisa Abbot of Savannah, Georgia Court of Appeals Judge Debra Bernes and Troup County Juvenile Judge R. Michael Key, labored for months to mitigate the worst aspects of the bill. Faced with two economic tables, they eventually persuaded the commission to adopt the higher one.
But there was a trade-off. Ehrhart got the commission to agree to lower the parenting time trigger to 91 days.
While the women of the Senate succeeded in forcing a change in that deal, it was a male colleague who spoke most plainly about why the whole concept of linking time spent with children to child support amounts is wrong.
"A day here or there doesn't reduce the monthly expenses of the mothers," said state Sen. Steve Thompson (D-Powder Springs). "It doesn't stop the upkeep of the house and the daily school money. The problem with this bill is that it gives someone economic credit for being a daddy, and that's stupid. You don't need to pay somebody for being a father. "
Oh, but its ok to pay somebody for being a mother? Well that's how it works today. The usual double standard woman's a victim manhaters in all their glory.
PING!!
PING!!
Gee how about this. Make Child Support tax deductable. Since in many cases the Father pays all the bills but the Mother gets all the tax credits since she is the custodial parent.
Better yet, at the divorce hearing, let the wife set the child support figure to whatever she wants. But then the husband gets to choose whether to pay the support, or have custody of the kids
I wish I saved the names of the "It's only my sperm, not my responsibility" crowd. I would ping them to this article.
Bless the women and children in Georgia. I hope they make it through this fight for their lives.
A husband and wife had a baby, but the man found out his wife was cheating on him with a guy named Jim. It turned out that Jim was the real father. After learning of his wife's adulterous affair, the man divorced her, and the ex-wife moved in with Jim, and then they got married. Naturally, the ex-husband was ordered to pay her child support for the child of the man she was now shacking up with.
But it gets more interesting. The guy's ex-wife leaves Jim and sticks him with the baby, (remember, he's the real biological father). Now the clincher. The ex-husband is ordered to pay Jim the child support now. So now we have a man who's not even related to the child paying child support to the child's father. What do you think of women's rights now?
The way I see it, ANYONE male of female who doesn't support their children should be sent to jail. Why can't we figure out what support is....it isn't always just financial. Sometimes those children with the most financially, are the ones with least "support."
I know two men who have custody of their children. The mothers have not paid one thin dime, and not once have they paid a penalty. Another guy I know lost his job, got 2 months behind and spent 30 days in the klink, which of course, made him another month behind on support. Oh, what a fair system we have.
But to hell with many decent men, some of whom are barely allowed to see their kids and who live in poverty thanks to people of your mindset.
Bump for later
I agree!
Your words, not mine.
I just do not buy the fact that any decent man is not allowed to see his children. It just doesn't fly. The courts want equal visitation by both parents unless there are extenuating circumstances. I think, Bucky, that you might be letting some important detail out of this equation if you are not allowed ample visitation rights.
I don't think you remember any of the details correctly in this story. I don't buy it.
This is all second hand experience and hear say. I would like to hear a first hand account of this and the details behind it. Often when we relay a story like this, we do not have the entire story.
Franklin County Ohio Domestic Court Rule #27. Non-custodial parent has visitation every other weekend and from 5:00 to 8:00 PM on Wednesday.
That's it. That's me. The courts don't give a damn about equality for parents.
I agree. It is the emotional support that is sometimes lacking. And the mother has to play both mother and father to the child. I am certainly not bashing dads. I think many fathers do offer emotional support and should be offered the respect they deserve.
I don't mean to get into personal details, but what was the reason for so little visitation? There had to be something?
The problem is that while the court can force a parent to pay support, they can't force them to see their children. A parent under the proposed system can obtain 50/50 custody, not having to pay support, and then disappear from their children's lives.
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.