Skip to comments.
Another Man Down in the War Against Fathers
FatherMag.com ^
| August 22, 2002
| Roger F. Gay
Posted on 08/22/2002 6:45:01 AM PDT by RogerFGay
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,001-1,020, 1,021-1,040, 1,041-1,060 ... 1,081-1,093 next last
To: RogerFGay
Roger, with respect to the proposed changes of Virginia's statutes, I see the provisions for *voluntary* unemployment & under employment are excluded.
Follow me here. A custodial parent chooses to quit working to have another child. Not only is is a paying non-custodial parent going to get a negative impact due to additional financial obligations in the other household (an extra mouth to feed), but they get a second hit due to the voluntary unemployment or under-employment by the other parent.
Am I missing something?
To: almostheaven aka MrsDrumbo
On the other hand, any judge who turns a parent into a visitor or any parent who denies the other parent full and total access to their children including all relevant information on their health, school and general well being should never be allowed to have contact with the child again.
To: GoLightly
Most states base child support on an income shares model, basically the more you make the more you pay. Yet there is only one parent who is allowed not to work, and that is the custodial parent. Regardless what federal law states (which btw, is that BOTH parents are financially responsible for the child) state allow custodial parents to either stop working or not work at all.
This really becomes a problem during a second marriage. As an example, take a couple who divorces and the custodial parent works after the divorce. The non-custodial parents CS is based on both of their incomes. Now if the custodial parent decides to have another child and quit their job, not only is can the amount of CS be raised on the non-custodial parent that same parent can actually have their CS raised on the notion that the custodial parent now has more of a financial burden due to the new child.
I hope you followed that line of reasoning the states use, since I've yet to see how the states can impose CS based on a child the non-custodial parent has nothing to do with.
To: GoLightly
I'm strongly in favor of getting the feds out of just about everything, including legislating CS standards. One of my main beefs with most FR groups is their seemed desire to federalize things even more. They want to promote joint placement, so they attack it on the federal level, meaning they give the federal legislators reason to stick their noses where they don't belong.
I think you should watch very carefully to see how much promotion of federalism there is in the program called the Fatherhood Initiative. The Fatherhood Initiative is not part of the FR movement and is not an FR group, although I have read several newspaper articles that have misrepresented them as such.
I've met with people in the federal government and I can tell you with 100 percent certainty that they want to stick their noses in even further. People I met with encouraged a battle between women/feminists and men/FR groups and encouraged pursuit of federal entitlements for men in response to federal entitlements for women.
Real-life FR groups from what I've seen are not in favor of increased federal noses, so the two parties created the Fatherhood Initiative is a counterfeit organization to fake representation of fathers' interests. They are way heavily into expansion of federalism and sticking the government's nose right up everybody's ....
The thing real people say about the Fatherhood Initiative is that they have this really weird way of expressing support for fatherhood by being extremely anti-father.
To: Right To Life; almostheaven aka MrsDrumbo
Perhaps you may think the goverment should never be involved, yet to believe such is also to believe that I, as a taxpayer, should be content in paying for the mistakes of others.
Well, that's a weird thing to say. If the government isn't involved, they wouldn't be spending your tax money on it. Here's the thing maybe you don't understand. Since the federal government got involved in child support, they are now spending more than $4 billion a year more of your hard earned tax money. The people who are paying child support through the new system are the same people who were paying before the new system was created. It's just costing the taxpayers more than $4 billion a year.
To: Right To Life; right2parent
To: GoLightly
Roger, with respect to the proposed changes of Virginia's statutes, I see the provisions for *voluntary* unemployment & under employment are excluded. Follow me here. A custodial parent chooses to quit working to have another child. Not only is is a paying non-custodial parent going to get a negative impact due to additional financial obligations in the other household (an extra mouth to feed), but they get a second hit due to the voluntary unemployment or under-employment by the other parent.
Am I missing something?
I think you might be missing the part about how sickening it would be to live in a country where the government tells you where you have to work, what kind of job you have to do, how many hours you must work, etc. I think if they don't back off from that leftist extremist BS, there's going to be a revolution.
To: RogerFGay
"I think you might be missing the part about how sickening it would be to live in a country where the government tells you where you have to work, what kind of job you have to do, how many hours you must work, etc. I think if they don't back off from that leftist extremist BS, there's going to be a revolution."
A portion of our population already lives in that country. That would be non-custodial parents who have been ordered not to leave their current jobs, or after they have been ordered to go back to work, and especially those who are placed in prison/jail for quitting or losing their jobs.
To: Brytani
Read Roger's post previous to mine & follow his link or you're not talking about the same thing I am. It looked to me as though the proposed VA statute addressed your complaint, where the cost of living in the non-custodial parent's home was taken off of the top.
As far as parents "allowed" not to work... I know of several interstate cases that would make your position bunk. Meaning, as they are interstate cases, federal law applies In those cases, as long as the ordered obligation is paid, the non-custodial parent's working or not working isn't addressed by the court.
I know of cases in income share states where the custodial parent's income is imputed.
Finally, it looked to me as though *both* households are lible for a hit if the other household chose to have additional children (reduction if in NCP household or increase if CP household). If you re-read my post, you'll see I took that into consideration, which is why I said, it would be a second hit for un or under employment. Where is Agnes with her pie theory when I need her? lol
To: Brytani
A portion of our population already lives in that country. That would be non-custodial parents who have been ordered not to leave their current jobs, or after they have been ordered to go back to work, and especially those who are placed in prison/jail for quitting or losing their jobs.
Tracing back through the discussion .... when I suggested changes to Virginia law, I left the part out about imputed income ... leaving the door open for people to have free choice about their job and career decisions.
To: RogerFGay
No, I'm pretty sickened by it, but then again, I'm sickened by parents that quit their jobs right before court so they can dump all of the responsibility for supporting their children on the child's other parent.
Ditto on the revolution, by the kids of those parents. Many times it assures that the kids are raised by themselves or the streets, as the parent doing it all alone has to work long hours just to put food on the table & a roof over their heads. Isn't that the revolution we already have?
To: GoLightly
As far as parents "allowed" not to work... I know of several interstate cases that would make your position bunk. Meaning, as they are interstate cases, federal law applies In those cases, as long as the ordered obligation is paid, the non-custodial parent's working or not working isn't addressed by the court.
Besides the fact very few people have the resources to pay court order child support without holding some sort of a job, your statement does nothing to prove what I said as "bunk". The simple fact is, there is not a single state in the country, nor a single federal law that states a CUSTODIAL parent much provide a specific amount of financial support to their child, or that they must hold down a job to financially support said child. On the other hand, every state has a specific amount of money the non-custodial parent must pay every month and most state use inputed income if the non-custodial is consider "under employed". Again, this is not done to the custodial parent.
To: Right To Life
Also, non-governmental charities and churches to help truly impoverished parents...
Which didn't answer the question posed in
#1013, the one you were responding to.
To: Right To Life
POV... you have advocated for unjustly treated fathers exactly where?
By not advocating for fathers
or mothers. I focus on what's wrong with the family court system.
To: Right To Life
Have a wonderful, safe, happy, healthy, fulfilling, comfortable, engaging life.
So if you truly can't answer something or see past your own biased view, this is your response. Ok, you too.
To: Brytani
On the other hand, any judge who turns a parent into a visitor or any parent who denies the other parent full and total access to their children including all relevant information on their health, school and general well being should never be allowed to have contact with the child again.
I'd say that would depend on whether the parent that was denied did something to warrant being denied, wouldn't you?
To: RogerFGay
Well, that's a weird thing to say. If the government isn't involved, they wouldn't be spending your tax money on it. Here's the thing maybe you don't understand. Since the federal government got involved in child support, they are now spending more than $4 billion a year more of your hard earned tax money. The people who are paying child support through the new system are the same people who were paying before the new system was created. It's just costing the taxpayers more than $4 billion a year.
It costs either way...with CS or without. I'd much rather propose
solutions than inane one-sided ventures that gain nothing.
To: Brytani
The simple fact is, there is not a single state in the country, nor a single federal law that states a CUSTODIAL parent much provide a specific amount of financial support to their child, or that they must hold down a job to financially support said child.
Partly wrong and partly correct but with reasoning. Partly wrong in that any parent with a child in their care who fails to provide "needs" is guilty of neglect and there are laws...criminal laws...against neglect. Correct in that they aren't specified an amount. That reasoning being that since they
are the custodial parent, the child being in their direct care, absent neglect, it is assumed that they are spending
something on the child. With a non-custodial parent you cannot make such an assumption and they can't simply say pay
something...so they set an amount.
I don't agree with the amounts that tell one NCP to pay $1,000/mo. and another to pay $100. I don't agree with the way courts set it in all cases. Neither do I agree with one-sided views of the issues from those who would choose to simply state it's ok to abandon children and never face a consequence of it.
If it's really so important for some to think we should completely trash CS, then I say we should institute the neglect laws. Walk on a child, go directly to jail. No chance to pay support or prove you can be a responsible parent. Walk away...slammer. It still won't help those children, will it?
To: almostheaven aka MrsDrumbo
Addition: I have views about the welfare system to that are in direct link to those CPs who aren't providing that assumed care. So don't go thinking that I feel it's ok for CPs who don't provide the care.
To: GoLightly
No, I'm pretty sickened by it, but then again, I'm sickened by parents that quit their jobs right before court so they can dump all of the responsibility for supporting their children on the child's other parent.
The problem is that the extremists Democrats and Republicans refused to write reasonable laws. They stuck the federal government in where it didn't belong and created huge corrupt system that abuses fathers and supports organized crime. Now society is faced with this huge problem with government and a criminal child support industry that has to be dealt with.
If it wasn't for the corruption, intelligent, honest, knowledgable people could spend more time working with the laws to make the work properly instead of fighting corruption.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,001-1,020, 1,021-1,040, 1,041-1,060 ... 1,081-1,093 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson