Posted on 05/31/2003 2:42:54 PM PDT by sourcery
The child support enforcement program is a disease that has probably caused more suffering and death than any other government program. It was introduced by Congress in 1975 and has been engineered into a weapon of mass destruction in the years since. Despite sound evidence of destructive economic, social, and political effects and repeated cases of suicide linked to insufferable conditions created by current practices, politicians and administrative representatives continue to satisfy themselves with less than convincing denials, a few false and misleading statistics, and the claim that "it's for the children."
Various protests have generally been ignored, even when they are so serious as to cause harm to protesters. Potential danger lies in a particular form of protest: the hunger strike. The problems with child support enforcement, which were internationalized during the 1990s, have been met with occasional hunger strikes in several countries. Daniel Chang, a Chinese immigrant, has been the most recent to stage a hunger strike in the United States. His strike began on May 15th in Piscataway, New Jersey. Dr. Chang holds a Ph.D. in computer science and has a professional job. Despite federal involvement based on a pre-existing federal involvement in welfare, this case has nothing to do with the public welfare system.
The federal child support enforcement program is not for the children of course. The money spent on children is just as green whether paid under state rules or through a federal program. The incentive is the billions of dollars that Congress spends each year to keep people interested. States receive "incentive funds" in proportion to the amount of child support collected. In order to maximize the amount of funds they receive, states enrolled as many men as they could and arbitrarily increased the amount they were ordered to pay. All payments are counted as "collections." Everybody in government understands the scheme. It's pork. It's a brand of corruption older than government itself. A prospective enemy was demonized ("dads"), and people were called to arms against them; pledging their money and loyalty to the cause.
My early introduction to the child support enforcement system included a case in which a chiropractor had been involved in a serious auto-accident that resulted in brain damage. He was unable to continue his practice, and his savings was eaten up by medical bills. The state enforcement agency echoed the prevailing political sentiment ? "There is no excuse for not paying child support," and began confiscating social security benefits in an effort to satisfy the very high payments that had been set in light of his previously high income. The crippled man was left without sufficient income to pay for rent and food, and certainly without sufficient funds to pay a lawyer to attempt to straighten things out.
The reason for such harsh measures is the federal funding system. States receive money in proportion to the amount of child support "collected." Taking away social security benefits may have been worth $10 a month to the state; a little bit toward paying the salary of the collection agent who was robbing him of his sustenance.
This is the system that Dr. Chang is fighting. It isn't about reducing welfare expenditure. The money he owed is for support of his daughter from his first marriage. She is now 20 years old (an adult) and studying pharmacy at Rutgers University. He also has a 12 year old daughter from his second marriage. A well-paid professional, the austerity of his home and lifestyle is testimony to payment levels that are out of proportion to caring for children. Someone in his economic position would normally be able to raise two children in reasonably good style.
That judges have become beneficiaries in the enforcement scheme, pay linked to outcome, is a direct attack on judicial independence and therefore our Constitution ? in effect, an attack against the United States. American colonists raised this same issue in the Declaration of Independence; complaining about the King of Great Britain and his manipulations of democracy and the rule of law. "He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries."
Dr. Chang has only protested once before. In June, 1989 he marched with others in New York City to protest the killing of peaceful protesting students and others by the Chinese government. The only pattern seems to be a loathing of government oppression. And this time it's personal. He has been jailed three times (once for 108 days) and has no drivers license due to child support debt. This represents two of the practices fathers so often complain about. Atop arbitrary, unjustifiably high child support orders, often the reason for debt to begin with, spending time in jail and being unable to drive make earning an income to pay child support (and support oneself) ever so much harder. The alleged success of such practices is really a few instances in which friends and family, who do not owe child support, have pitched in to pay debts. That led at least one judge to claim that the practices worked for him. By and large, the expanded practice has left tens of thousands of fathers without licenses and an untold number with unlimited jail time; often until debt is paid, with no way to pay the debt while in jail.
Dr. Chang's experience is one that has been repeated many times across the country over the past fifteen years. Sheriff's deputies literally kicked in the door to his apartment and arrested him at gunpoint - weeks after he had made necessary payments. Employees at the Middlesex County Child Support Department had refused to help weeks earlier after his employer had missed a child support payment and miscalculated another. His employer is charged with making payments after deducting them from his pay, a common practice since the early 1990s. Dr. Chang points out that his employer is generally cooperative with the agency, but had made errors after an end-of-year payroll conversion. He contacted the child support agency and sent the money himself, but that didn't stop the violent enforcement action weeks later.
Give me liberty, or give me death! Or as Dr. Chang puts it: "It is better to die once than live a thousand humiliations." Isn't this just the sort of thing that led to the American Revolution? Is it the kind of government behavior that led to student protests in Tienanmen Square? It's probably deeper than that.
The assault on a man's life typically begins with a mother who decides to "liberate" herself from marriage, simply dealing a father out of his own personal and family life. The process is exceptionally easy. The government has been dedicated to helping women "liberate" themselves from marriage for decades. Once extricated, women often move on to new relationships, taking his children, a portion of his property and future income with them. The engineering of a new life quite often involves keeping the old one (the ex-husband) at an extreme distance, totally disengaged from his own children.
The process and its effects involve the deepest emotions there are. But to that we have now added a government operation designed by people who are using the situation to steal. They're stealing money from these very same fathers, often making mere existence difficult. They are doing it in order to steal money from taxpayers who are paying for the system in proportion to the amount of money taken from fathers. Finally, as if that isn't enough, they're stealing freedom and even life.
Dr. Chang hopes to force a conclusion to his ordeal within one month of the start of his protest. If he can, he will eat again and return to work. He has two weeks vacation and has arranged for a two week extension. This defines his goal of ? in effect ? winning an argument within a month. His water and salt diet is dangerous, especially if it continues for long. Several people have met with him, and have encouraged him to stay alive. When he began his strike on May 15th, he weighed 166 pounds. When I last received an email message from him, May 28th, his weight was 16 pounds less - 150 pounds.
Dr. Chang has vowed to continue until his demands are met. They are as follows (in his own words).
1. I do not owe any money to ex-wife Yee-Sang Yen. 2. If I have a job, fair monthly support money will be sent to the child, Olivia Chang, directly without going through any child support department. 3. The Middlesex Child Support Department repairs the damage it caused to my credit, and informs the Motor Vehicle Services to erase all my driving suspensions and restore my driving privilege immediately. 4. The Middlesex Child Support Department reimburses me the following: $282 for restoring my driving licenses, the cost of repairing the door damaged by the sheriffs, $280 taken from my wallet, $20 for getting from the Middlesex County Court to home.
Where did you get that number ? I'm seeing about 20% take home for one kid here in Texas ... and no alimony.
Root cause : feminism.
Damn, but you're pathetic.
Absolutely right! Every break imaginable goes to the custodial parent, which in nearly every case is the mother. The truth of it all is that the real "deadbeat" is often the mother who bloodsucks off the labors of the deposed father, while she does everything possible to keep the father away from his children. But don't expect truth or reality to have much power in this age of spiritual darkness that we live in. Peace 2 U.
In other words, mom is to be trusted but dad isn't. In my state, they charge a 2% "service fee" to garnish your wages every month. That's a lot of money. Of course, it only costs pennies to do an electronic transfer but dad has to finance the nice little cottage industry of family court thugs, too.
Oh, and don't be fooled by this whole "shared parenting" crap. It's the same old game just dressed up in PC language.
I'm just saying that women in the dating/marriage world have it a lot harder than men. If you've had bad relationships or dating experiences with women, women have it 10 times worse. If you ever had relationships with men you'd understand. When you have a daughter she'll fill you in on what it's like. No female is exempt. Girls run into creeps guaranteed at least once in their lifetime and that's just the beginning. Well you know how men act like jerks to women at sometime in their life if you're a man. Every man has done it. This breeds angry feminism. This is what makes women so angry. Not so for men because their experiences with the opposite sex aren't that bad. They have it pretty good compared to women.
I'm saying the women filing for divorce probably have very good reason to file for divorce. Why do you think females become so angry? For no reason? They want revenge.
I didn't quote them.
Bigamy as practiced by the Mormons, did not involve abandoment of their children. As far as only their first wife being their "real" wife, I guess you'd have to take that up with the other wives. I'm no scholar of the Bible, Old or New Testament, let alone the Book of Mormon, so I don't know were is it is written in the former that men can only have one wife, or women one husband for that matter, nor how the Mormons determined that in their religion it was OK. The practice is certainly not unheard of many cultures. The important thing is that their marriages, like monogamous ones, were fundamentally geared towards having and raising children. My understanding was that the most common arrangement was for all the wives and their children to live in the same house, perhaps with separate "wings" if they could afford such an arrangement. Perhaps you are thinking of the modern "renegade" Mormons who still practice mulitiple marriage? Some of those do utilize multiple households, if for no other reason than to keep the Sherrif at bay. Some of them, like some of most any group, are real slimeballs, but you shouldn't judge the pre-Utah statehood practices of mainstream Mormans by those of the modern group.
If you have a problem with that, well so be it.
My question to you is what does money, filthy lucre, have to do with real, honest-to-goodness child support?
Actually I agree with your sentiments about divorce, child support and "filthy lucre", I just don't see them applying to a pre-statehood Mormon style marriage with multiple wives. I don't know any Mormons with mulitiple wives, but the now more conventional monagmous Mormons I do know have very stable families. Their Church helps those who for one reason or another have financial problems, preventing fathers from having to work mulitiple jobs to support their families, so that they can actually be with their kids, rather than merely being nearly absent breadwinners. Divorce and adultry are highly frowned on.
No, I don't believe so. But this is the sort of stereotyping that good men are up against. I doubt you could find one woman who believes that I've taken advantage of her. On the contrary, several women tell me what a gentleman I am, how well-mannered , how I've let them "get away" with things other men would call them on and how I express my appreciation when they do nice things for me.
It's so convenient for women to believe that just beneath the surface of every man is a faithless cad, a potential rapist, a man capable of beating them up because it feeds their victim mentality. Some men like me don't play that sort of game but we're not in much demand because we are "too boring" or "too nice".
I know there are some great women out there but way too few of them and most are already in long-term relationships. Yes, some women have diffculty establishing and maintaining a relationship and are really interested in making one work but the ones I meet just seem interested in status and money as if they are trophy-hunting so they can swap notes with each other on who made the best "catch". That attitude is off-putting to me.
God, listen to you - "women are pigs and sluts because they skip me and my family values for the 'bad boys'". You're the one living in wank city, rejected by women you want to go out with, but are too gutless to ask out, much less to show that you are worthy in any way.
In the meantime, like all dweebs, they're passing you and your flabby, zitty, pasty-faced introversion (along with your oddly timed misogynist rants) for guys who have a clue about life and getting ahead.
The meek will inherit the earth all right, only after the rest of us are done with it.
Interesting observation, but it's just a red herring. You ignore the mother's financial responsibility in raising the children? A divorced father providing a home for himself and his ex-wife is a dreafully unfair propostion. It guarantees his perpetual poverty and his total inability to have anything remaining to help his children out with, or to have any spending money when they are with him. I've raised children, and they do not increase your rent or your mortgage. They don't increase your heat and light bills, and feeding young children isn't all that burdonsome financially. The best form of true child support is to give the father equal physical custoday so they can have a dad in their lives too.
I have never seen a child support order which was plainly in excess of the costs incurred to provide for the children. That doesn't mean they don't exist, but they're quite rare.
Only a lawyer could have the audacity and lack of conscience to miss-speak like this. I'd wager the farm you are a "family" practice lawyer. Well let me point something out to you, whoever you are: it isn't the cost of raising a child that should determine the amount of child support, that's an oppressive and utterly unfair formula. If they've got the excess money, fine. But it's what the divorced father's earning capability is that should determine the support order, with his own basic living expenses taken into consideration first, and the fact that his gross income is going to be taxed at roughly 25% - 30%. The laws typically go by the father's gross, ignoring the fact that his actual income is much less after taxes and other payroll deductions. Your formula simply forces a divorced father into a repressive indentured servitude to his ex wife, and she uses his money with no oversight to ensure the child benefits from it.
Possession of the house follows primary physical custody of the children, almost always.
Yeah, divorced men know this. The divorce Courts have a universal formula. The Judge splits the house into two sides. The wife gets the inside, the husband gets the outside.
The basis in most child custody determinations is what parent has spent more time with the child. A father who can make a credible showing that he has spent more time with his child than the mother has a decent shot at custody in many courts and get. Not very men can do this".
Just face the undeniable truth, the chilren go to the parent wearing the skirt, regardless of whom is clearly the better or more loving parent. Your post is, quite frankly, bull-hit, from start to finish. You fail to say why it is the fathers that have to prove superior amount of time spent with their children in the first place? Why is the onus on the father to have to prove something that is essentially unprovable? And what does "time" mean to the child if that time is spent with him/her being ignored or neglected? Who is to say that the three hours a day the father spends with his chldren isn't of higher quality and meaning that the 4 hours a day spent with mom? This is just another ridiculous and oppressive formula that makes no sense. Most women work full time today and abandon their children to Day Care Centers and the like anyway, and they spend no more time with their children than the father does. As I said in my first post, the laws are undeniably bent towards the mothers in the these custody/child support issues, and your input only serves to prove what I've said. The answer to each and every bogus proposition you listed above is to simply grant the divorced father equal rights and equal access to his flesh and blood. We need only look to the abortion laws to see which of the two parents is given more legal control to. Mom wants to destroy baby in the womb, and dad has no say over it, that's the law when the baby is in the womb, and after it's out. And these horrendous custody laws need to be changed, in the best interests of the 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.