[RogerFGay]

I sympathize with the guys being forced to cough up the vast majority of their paychecks, but they aren't the whole story. And until you can aknowledge that you'll never make headway on the issue.

I'm sorry you have personal issues with your father. I never discuss anyone's personal situation online. I don't know you or your father of course, and there's just no way for me to approach your individual situation in any reasonable way.

There are real limitations to what researchers can do. One thing we have to do is define what we're doing and understand the limitations of what we're doing. I've kindof been forced to do some research on enforcement just because it always came up in every discussion on child support. But the core of my research has been on methods of deciding how much should be awarded. I started that research in response to the problems being caused by the new, presumptive guidelines.

So, my impression is that we agree. If you can understand that, then I'll have gotten somewhere.

[discostu]

We agree in the core, the way child support is being determined these days is seriously mucked up. Of course it's always been that way the only question is what side is it erring on. One of the catalysts to the ongoing situation between my parents was when mom moved from Chicago to Tucson (after the divorce she moved back in with her parents in Chicago, dad was still in LA). Dad found out that in AZ child support was capped at $100 for an only child (they had a formula it was a $100 base plus some amount for every child past #1), so he started contesting the agreement on those ground. When finally a judge laughed him out of court (being that the divorce happened in CA and not one memeber of either extended family lived in AZ at the time AZ law had no precedent) he just stopped writing checks.

At that time there was NO enforcement of child support. None. It wasn't a crime punishable through any means. If you went to the courts the most they could do was send a letter reminding the person that they should be paying child support. The first support enforcement law we were aware of (working from faulty memory of childhood here) was in CA around 1985, but it didn't grandfather.

So when it comes to lessening the enforcement portion I'm mostly against you. Child support payment has to be enforced, there needs to be reasonable limitations, some sort of rollover period for unemployment (ala student loans, not applicable if you quit, doesn't cancel the debt just defers it, that kind of thing). They should definitely take a page from the IRS, deadbeats can't pay their child support from jail, garnishment is better than imprisonment.

Of course the guideline structure from the fed has got to go, not only is it not their jurisdiction but it punishes the wealthy. But to me these guidelines are only 1/3 of the issue, and not the important 1/3.