Child support as USA politics

by JP Cusick Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:34 pm

I am NOT campaigning here as I just want to discuss such things, but I am a candidate in my Maryland for the US Senate 2012, but if I win then my politics will affect the entire USA.

My point and platform is to radically reform the Child Support laws under federal mandate. Link HERE.

As like the law says the c/s must be taken as a percentage but instead the State Courts only order fixed set amounts which is severely abusive and detrimental to all concerned.

Thereby the laws have unjustly turned parenting into a crime and turned parents into criminals and it destroys the family unit and alienates the children.

The system needs to be stopped or dramatically reformed and yet most people are just determined to pretend that the injustices and ruin are just acceptable conditions.

Child Support claims to be helping children when it is really just playing politics with our society.

So I was wondering if anyone here has any input onto this subject?

by astra Wed Nov 09, 2011 9:47 pm

just to digress (For which I appologise) I should be intrested in any links you have to George Calvert your founder father
here is what he left here in UK - http://www.kiplinhall.co.uk/the-house/

I live 2 miles from Washington Old Hall owned by the Wessyington's since time immemorial! The General himself was never here but the link with the family AND with the USA is stubbornly held on to even in the present clime. The last President to visit was J Carter.

As to the Child Support Legislation this was all turned upside down maybe 14 years ago, rehashed and "improved worse" after 5 years. Not having been caught up in the system myself I have no first hand of it myself, but hope to see some enlightening input all the same.

by oftenwrong Wed Nov 09, 2011 10:43 pm

Obviously all State Benefits are politically motivated, but hopefully Child Benefit is in direct proportion to the requirement for a greater population - or its reverse.

by JP Cusick Wed Nov 09, 2011 11:45 pm

astra wrote:

just to digress (For which I appologise) I should be intrested in any links you have to George Calvert your founder father
here is what he left here in UK - http://www.kiplinhall.co.uk/the-house/

I live 2 miles from Washington Old Hall owned by the Wessyington's since time immemorial! The General himself was never here but the link with the family AND with the USA is stubbornly held on to even in the present clime. The last President to visit was J Carter.

I never heard of that "Kiplin Hall" but I certainly do know about the Calvert family on that LINK here.

I am directly within St Mary's County where the Calvert expedition first settled in my Maryland, Historic St Mary's City, and there are very many things with those historic names, as like Calvert County, Baltimore City, Leonardtown, Cecil Farm, and much much more.

Plus I like Jimmy Carter and history shows he was a far better US President that many people try to deny.

astra wrote:

As to the Child Support Legislation this was all turned upside down maybe 14 years ago, rehashed and "improved worse" after 5 years. Not having been caught up in the system myself I have no first hand of it myself, but hope to see some enlightening input all the same.

The Child Support and Custody laws are an evil system, and most people have no idea of just how evil it truly is.

It does seem like a hopeless cause since mankind's inhumanity to each other simply takes on new forms while it remains the same old ignorance.

by jackthelad Thu Nov 10, 2011 12:19 pm

JP Cusick wrote:-
I am NOT campaigning here as I just want to discuss such things, but I am a candidate in my Maryland for the US Senate 2012, but if I win then my politics will affect the entire USA.

My point and platform is to radically reform the Child Support laws under federal mandate. Link HERE.

I don't have a clue about American politics, don't know if you are a member of the Republican, Democratic or the new Tea Pot Party. You do sound like a Socialist, so good look in your campaign for a seat in the senate.

by **Ivan** Thu Nov 10, 2011 5:34 pm

LOL, jack. I don't think they have socialists in the USA, but Mr Cusick describes himself as a conservative Democrat. He also said that he approves of Jimmy Carter, who in my opinion was one of the four best Presidents elected in the USA in the last forty years - the others being Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and.....Al Gore (but that's another story!).

by JP Cusick Thu Nov 10, 2011 6:53 pm

jackthelad wrote:

I don't have a clue about American politics, don't know if you are a member of the Republican, Democratic or the new Tea Pot Party. You do sound like a Socialist, so good look in your campaign for a seat in the senate.

I am an American style Democrat of our Democratic Party, but I too have found it irritating when I view a candidate's website and it does not tell the political affiliation, so I just added a new link onto my website called "Democratic Party" and I give a big (D) next to my name so now it is not so difficult to figure out that I am a Democrat.

I do see myself as a conservative Democrat but I am far from the ideas of the Republican Party and especially very far from the horrible Tea Party, but I do like the idea of my being viewed as leaning into socialism since that appears to offer the only true hope for humanity worldwide.

My campaign here in Maryland is proceeding very well and it might get better yet as the time draws nearer.

The voting date is April 3, 2012

cheers

by oftenwrong Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:39 pm

Just be grateful that you're not Rick Perry.

by Shirina Thu Nov 10, 2011 8:11 pm

I always thought the child support laws were idiotic here in the US. While working a low-end job during the summer between semesters, I knew a guy who brought home $17 for a week's worth of work. The rest of it went to a child support garnish. I know this is true because he actually showed me the pay stub. The only reason why he worked the job at all was to stay out of jail.

The method by which child support amounts are determined are poorly thought out. I know for a fact my parents - both together - never spent $500 per month on me while I was growing up. Even Christmas did not net that kind of haul. My presence in the home did not cause my parents to use more heat, and the increase in water and electricity was negligible. I did not eat copious amounts of food, and I did not receive new clothes every month. I did not receive every toy, gadget, or game that I wanted, and if my parents couldn't afford it, they said no - something a child-supporting father does not have the luxury to do.

Yet the courts assign child support payments large enough to literally set up a child with his/her own apartment, utilities, cable television, internet access, car, insurance, and food. It's as if the mother is not required to put forth any effort at all in paying for the child's welfare - perhaps the courts believe that the "burden" of raising the child means she is exempted from financial responsibility?

And if that isn't bad enough, there are no guarantees that the mother is actually using the money to benefit the child. Stories abound how mothers enter into new relationships but postpone actual marriage until the child turns 18 - just to keep the support money rolling in. Even though the new man eagerly pays his share of child expenses and even if the new man is willing to legally adopt the child as his own, this is discouraged by some women just to keep that support money. Of course, since the child's expenses are covered by mom and new father, the biological father ends up paying through the nose so the mother can have free spending money which can be squandered in any way she sees fit. There are few safeguards to ensure that child support money actually goes toward the cost of raising a child.

The courts need to calculate the average cost of raising a child based on the income of the parents. This should only include the necessities - not padding money that would amount to the child receiving a brand new wardrobe every month, or new computers, Xboxes, cellphones, and whatever else - every month. As I said, if my parents ever spent $500 on me in a single month, it was because of some special, unique set of circumstances that warranted it. Mortgages, most utility bills, et. al. are not affected by the presence of a child yet the courts act as if the child is living in his/her own apartment and needs the same amount of money as an independent adult.

by jackthelad Thu Nov 10, 2011 8:14 pm

My campaign here in Maryland is proceeding very well and it might get better yet as the time draws nearer.
The voting date is April 3, 2012

I would vote for you, do you think they would allow me a proxy vote?

by astra Thu Nov 10, 2011 8:34 pm

SO!

In America, (as in UK)

It is in a female' intrests to Wed, to have kids, THEN to divorce hubby possibly on the most spurious of charges/reasons just for the financial gain!

Polish overactive uteruses er females, have latched onto this in a big way, here in the North East.

by Shirina Thu Nov 10, 2011 8:46 pm

It is in a female' intrests to Wed, to have kids, THEN to divorce hubby possibly on the most spurious of charges/reasons just for the financial gain!

A mother is likely to get more money from a former husband than a current husband, that is for certain. When you couple that with no-fault divorce, this can easily be turned into a scam. Naturally there is the risk that the father will become a "deadbeat dad" and not fall into the trap - and I have talked to a few men ducking child support because they feel they had been set up by the mother. In truth, it's much easier to coax a man into having sex than it is to get him to marry you - and since the man does not have to be married to the mother for the mother to receive child support, there is a lot of suspicion when the woman suddenly turns up pregnant and demands payment.

by astra Thu Nov 10, 2011 9:22 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIKt_WQHia8&feature=related

Chet says it so much better than I

Go to it Mr Cusick!!

by Guest Thu Nov 10, 2011 9:29 pm

JP Cusick,

Once upon a time, sufficiently removed from 2011 that it seems like another lifetime, I served as a social worker for the largest state human services agency in North America (north of the Rio Grande). At the time, it was an all encompassing, “one-stop-and-shop” agency that dealt with all aspects of human services, including child protective services, family services, foster homes and adoptions, and child support. My familiarity with the problem, therefore, is close up and personal.

There is one problem with child support that the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate could effectively address though legislation. Let’s examine a “for instance” to illustrate:

Freddy O’Corner (“Freddy On the Corner”), a Pennsylvania resident, is ordered by a Pennsylvania court to pay Freda O’Corner $500.00 per month child support for their sweet four year old daughter, Francine O’Corner. Freddy, acting like the gentleman he is, says to the judge (via email; Freddy ain’t nobody’s fool) something like, “I ain’t payin’ Freda a dime no time”, and skips across the border to Wilmington, Delaware. Since Freddy has committed no crime, he cannot be deemed an interstate fugitive.

In other words, it’s often a jurisdictional problem.

Why not introduce legislation in Congress that allows the federal government to extend interstate fugitive status to those who flee across state lines to escape court orders? That way, the US Marshal Service could hound-dog Freddy from coast to coast, border to border, and in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, the American Virgin Islands, and American Samoa. And since US Marshals can deputize state peace officers, the deputized cop who busts Freddy’s chops in Malibu might be from Freddy’s right-across-the-border-from-Wilmington Pennsylvania neighborhood.

by astra Thu Nov 10, 2011 9:59 pm

Hello Rock

That's all fine if Freddy can afford to keep himself together while paying out that cash.

It should be on ABILITY to pay

This means that the rich should HAVE to declare all earnings and finances, and sequestered if deemed necessary!

It is ONLY the rich who have these get out clauses, just like jumping Tax liability - it is a game to them!

Those on the lower end of the scale are not so fortunate, and as a Chancellor of the Exchequer once said in this country - I'll squeeze untill the pips squeek (Dennis Healy MP) - pity he did not follow through with his threat! Evil or Very Mad

by JP Cusick Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:41 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
JP Cusick,

Once upon a time, sufficiently removed from 2011 that it seems like another lifetime, I served as a social worker for the largest state human services agency in North America (north of the Rio Grande). At the time, it was an all encompassing, “one-stop-and-shop” agency that dealt with all aspects of human services, including child protective services, family services, foster homes and adoptions, and child support. My familiarity with the problem, therefore, is close up and personal.

There is one problem with child support that the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate could effectively address though legislation. Let’s examine a “for instance” to illustrate:

Freddy O’Corner (“Freddy On the Corner”), a Pennsylvania resident, is ordered by a Pennsylvania court to pay Freda O’Corner $500.00 per month child support for their sweet four year old daughter, Francine O’Corner. Freddy, acting like the gentleman he is, says to the judge (via email; Freddy ain’t nobody’s fool) something like, “I ain’t payin’ Freda a dime no time”, and skips across the border to Wilmington, Delaware. Since Freddy has committed no crime, he cannot be deemed an interstate fugitive.

In other words, it’s often a jurisdictional problem.

Why not introduce legislation in Congress that allows the federal government to extend interstate fugitive status to those who flee across state lines to escape court orders? That way, the US Marshal Service could hound-dog Freddy from coast to coast, border to border, and in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, the American Virgin Islands, and American Samoa. And since US Marshals can deputize state peace officers, the deputized cop who busts Freddy’s chops in Malibu might be from Freddy’s right-across-the-border-from-Wilmington Pennsylvania neighborhood.

The thing is that the "Freddy" you describe has NOT committed any real crime, he has harmed no one except hurting himself, and neither the State nor the Federal Gov has any right or duty to hunt down some father for such a fictitious debt.

The idea that our Gov is to function as some big-Daddy is not the correct functioning of government or of laws.

The Courts and the laws are to be for violent criminals who actual do harm to our society, and they are not to be misused as parenting police, or to collect unjustified money.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Fri Nov 11, 2011 12:43 am

"LOL, jack. I don't think they have socialists in the USA, but Mr Cusick describes himself as a conservative Democrat. He also said that he approves of Jimmy Carter, who in my opinion was one of the four best Presidents elected in the USA in the last forty years - the others being Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and.....Al Gore (but that's another story!)." ~ Ivan

LOL. We absolutely do have socialists in the USA...they're known as "Democrats".

by GreatNPowerfulOz Fri Nov 11, 2011 12:47 am

I'd like to take exception to JP's statement that socialism is the only true hope for humanity...anyone with even the most basic understanding of the evolution of life on this planet understands that socialism is the opposite of evolution. Enabling those less than capable to "thrive" defeats the evolutionary process, pollutes the gene pool and expands the population in ways that put the entire species at risk in terms of survivability. In simple terms...socialism ensures an ever increasing population of "dead weight" burning up resources.

by astra Fri Nov 11, 2011 1:56 am

I take it you mean the USSR example of socialism.

Back in the cold war days, russian factories were making single products. One would make watering can after watering can with no one knowing where they were going to be sold, another would be making farming implement (as opposed to farming machinery, whose ethic was no better) after farming implement with no-one knowing where they were going to be sold.
Bad management that!
Indeed when Idi Amin payed Moscow for Bulldozers to build roadways and runways, they sent him snow ploughs, no use for shifting millions of tonnes of SAND
Bad management that

What of Cuban Socialism - seems to work! they send Medical teams all over the planet - OK to places where you and I may not be welcome BUT THEY DO IT!

Yeah Capitalism is a shining light to any aspiring government

Black Wednesday, Lehman Brothers, Credit Crunch
Bad management that!

A common thread going through this post, my distaste distrust and dislike of management - IMO, none in 42 years of work has ever "Cut the Mustard"

For information, I have worked in the private sector - Capitalist if you like and for Public - Socialist (health then public transport) and both had shortcomings -

you guessed it - Bad Management that!

It is my belief, that if a system is made to work for the 'Weal of the Realm' - read country, (old scots ethic) (as opposed to the benefit of less than 1% of the population) it will not matter which banner it flies!

by Guest Fri Nov 11, 2011 3:31 am

JP,

I am fully aware that failure to pay child support is neither a federal crime nor a crime in any of the several sovereign states. That being said, once upon a time, in the nation’s second most populous state, the Sovereign State of Texas, in a family court familiar to me, Judge “John J. Johnson” gave out jail time like candy on Halloween to those who foolishly failed to follow strictly his court orders.

Among those threatened from his bench with indeterminate jail time were a mother who repeatedly failed to deliver her son to her son’s father every other weekend as ordered (she had custody, he had bi-weekly visitation) and a state human services “high-up” administrator who had ordered a unit supervisor to enroll a child in state custody in a certain school, based on the location of the child’s foster home, in direct and knowing contravention of Judge Johnson’s court order to leave the child enrolled in the school which he had attended before he had been removed from the custody of his abusive parents.

Jail time is jail time, whether because one has broken the law or because one has violated a court order.

Since a convicted criminal who flees across state lines can be tracked down and brought to justice by US Marshals, why can’t a scoundrel in violation of a court order who flees across state lines also be brought to justice by US Marshals? Both are using jurisdictional boundaries to escape responsibility for their obligations.

Going a bit further, did you know that an inordinate proportion of grown criminals grew up outside the regular and reliable presence of a responsible father? Are you aware of the fact that a highly disproportionate percentage of those incarcerated in the United States are black males (lowercase intentional) who were “raised” in “single parent”, i.e., “female head of household”, homes? Perhaps knowing that child support payments have become a bit more unavoidable might encourage more black males to stick around rather than effectively abandon their male children to the streets.

This might sound a bit harsh, but my country is in jeopardy, and you, I, and our fellow Americans USV are all at risk.

From memory, something like two-thirds (or more) of black children currently live in “single parent”, i.e., “female head of household”, homes.

by oftenwrong Fri Nov 11, 2011 10:31 am

Young men who are only accustomed to being in a female household, get a nasty shock when they (invariably) get to see the inside of a Prison, which will, in contrast, be entirely male-dominated. A whole new set of rules have to be divined and obeyed in a very short time, to avoid discomfort.

by **Ivan** Fri Nov 11, 2011 1:29 pm

LOL. We absolutely do have socialists in the USA...they're known as "Democrats"..

Really, Oz? You're trying to tell me that the US Democratic Party advocates the public ownership of the means of production, distribution and wealth? That's the first I've heard of it!

by JP Cusick Fri Nov 11, 2011 2:42 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:

Jail time is jail time, whether because one has broken the law or because one has violated a court order.

Since a convicted criminal who flees across state lines can be tracked down and brought to justice by US Marshals, why can’t a scoundrel in violation of a court order who flees across state lines also be brought to justice by US Marshals? Both are using jurisdictional boundaries to escape responsibility for their obligations.

I say from reading your words that you view people as pawns which does many people view humanity in that way.

Just because we can hunt and track down wanted persons then it does NOT make us right to do such a thing, and it is wrong to do such things.

You reference criminals or violating a Court order as if the laws are the word-of-God that has some absolute doctrine included when they are severely fallible and unjust.

When a parent makes their own parental decision to leave their own children - then it is best and right to let them leave and so be it.

RockOnBrother wrote:
Going a bit further, did you know that an inordinate proportion of grown criminals grew up outside the regular and reliable presence of a responsible father? Are you aware of the fact that a highly disproportionate percentage of those incarcerated in the United States are black males (lowercase intentional) who were “raised” in “single parent”, i.e., “female head of household”, homes? Perhaps knowing that child support payments have become a bit more unavoidable might encourage more black males to stick around rather than effectively abandon their male children to the streets.

This might sound a bit harsh, but my country is in jeopardy, and you, I, and our fellow Americans USV are all at risk.

From memory, something like two-thirds (or more) of black children currently live in “single parent”, i.e., “female head of household”, homes.

The things that we need to give are incentive and encouragement and even give reward for the 2 parents to stay connected to each other and to their own children, while the violent and unjust Child Support and Custody laws do the exact opposite in that the laws push the parents away from each other, and the ignorant inhuman laws alienate the children from both of their parents.

I do know about the laws underlining intention of controlling the African American population, and us white people need to stop viewing them as our property or subordinates.

The inhuman Child Support and Custody laws are NOT the solution as those evil laws are the biggest part of the problems.

by jackthelad Fri Nov 11, 2011 2:49 pm

Socialism is the best when its run properlyand efficiently.
RockOnBrother is my type of socialist, if a person is breaking a court order or the law, they should be pursued where ever they try and escape to. The father that nip's over the state boarder to avoid payment is just like the rich Britons who evade paying taxes by off shore banking.
I don't believe fathers should not be forced to pay more than they can afford, but must pay what they can.
Most people here pay tax as you earn, it is taken from your wages before you yourself get your hands on it. Where has people at the top who assess their own taxes get away with fiddling their tax returns.
There are a lot of laws, criminal and civil need looking into.

by Shirina Fri Nov 11, 2011 5:11 pm

Enabling those less than capable to "thrive" defeats the evolutionary process, pollutes the gene pool and expands the population in ways that put the entire species at risk in terms of survivability. In simple terms...socialism ensures an ever increasing population of "dead weight" burning up resources.

You didn't seem overly concerned about "burning up resources" when I mentioned how we've gone from 6 billion to 7 billion people in only 12 years. Instead you wanted to add to the problem by giving a fertilized egg the same rights as a Person thus adding to the problem. This is the classic conservative double-standard: Make sure every last fertilized egg is born, then abandon them once they come out of the womb.

by oftenwrong Fri Nov 11, 2011 5:12 pm

The obvious comment is that nobody is entitled to choose which Laws they will obey, and which ones they will not, otherwise the entire legal system fails.

by JP Cusick Fri Nov 11, 2011 10:47 pm

oftenwrong wrote:

The obvious comment is that nobody is entitled to choose which Laws they will obey, and which ones they will not, otherwise the entire legal system fails.

Of course everyone gets to pick and choose which laws to obey and which to shirk and which to defy.

Otherwise it would be a surrender of our free-will, and of our personal conscience, and trashing our human dignity.

And people willfully break laws every day, breaking both big and small laws and breaking assorted other laws.

In fact that is what sustains our legal system.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Sat Nov 12, 2011 3:13 am

"Really, Oz? You're trying to tell me that the US Democratic Party advocates the public ownership of the means of production, distribution and wealth? That's the first I've heard of it!" ~ Ivan

Even though you are confusing "communism" with "socialism", if you actually look at the ideology of the contemporary Democratic Party in the U.S. you see that they literally advocate "public ownership" of the means of production and distribution of wealth. Democrats unabashedly advocate, although they never really put it as blatantly as this, that the public at large as a right to redistribute wealth as they see fit and that "the public good" surpasses personal property rights.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Sat Nov 12, 2011 3:18 am

"You didn't seem overly concerned about "burning up resources" when I mentioned how we've gone from 6 billion to 7 billion people in only 12 years. Instead you wanted to add to the problem by giving a fertilized egg the same rights as a Person thus adding to the problem. This is the classic conservative double-standard: Make sure every last fertilized egg is born, then abandon them once they come out of the womb" ~ Shirina

You seem to not be able to think beyond talking points. I never advocated that fetuses be afforded the same rights as a "person"...only that we need to address the obvious and glaring contradiction that a fetus is "not a person" if its mother decides to kill it but if someone other than the mother causes its death, then it's a crime of fetal homocide or feticide....thus affording the fetus "standing" as a person to have been the victim of a crime.

by Guest Sat Nov 12, 2011 3:34 am

GreatNPowerfulOz wrote:
... we need to address the obvious and glaring contradiction that a fetus is "not a person" if its mother decides to kill it but if someone other than the mother causes its death, then it's a crime of fetal homocide or feticide....thus affording the fetus "standing" as a person to have been the victim of a crime.

Clear, concise, precise exposition of a glaring contradiction.

by JP Cusick Sun Nov 13, 2011 2:43 pm

Shirina wrote:

Enabling those less than capable to "thrive" defeats the evolutionary process, pollutes the gene pool and expands the population in ways that put the entire species at risk in terms of survivability. In simple terms...socialism ensures an ever increasing population of "dead weight" burning up resources.

You didn't seem overly concerned about "burning up resources" when I mentioned how we've gone from 6 billion to 7 billion people in only 12 years. Instead you wanted to add to the problem by giving a fertilized egg the same rights as a Person thus adding to the problem. This is the classic conservative double-standard: Make sure every last fertilized egg is born, then abandon them once they come out of the womb.

I say all this above are a huge big influence on the barbaric Child Support and Custody laws, in that the most common sense knows those laws are evil and harmful and that is the idea, in that it is intended to punish parenting and thereby slow down the population growth rate much like providing an abortion.

Many people and especially high officials are very concerned about over-population, and so citizens are empowered to get abortions, and if they do not get the abortion then the parents will be degraded and persecuted by the Child Support and Custody laws.

It is like spanking a child in that they know it hurts the child as that is their intention, and it is the intention of those evil laws to hurt the parents for having children.

As such the Gov and its evil laws are inhuman and anti-human and it needs to be stopped.

by oftenwrong Sun Nov 13, 2011 6:56 pm

it needs to be stopped

slight ambiguity. What needs to be stopped? Having children, or the Government?

by jstnay Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:32 pm

JP Cusick wrote:
jackthelad wrote:

I don't have a clue about American politics, don't know if you are a member of the Republican, Democratic or the new Tea Pot Party. You do sound like a Socialist, so good look in your campaign for a seat in the senate.

I am an American style Democrat of our Democratic Party, but I too have found it irritating when I view a candidate's website and it does not tell the political affiliation, so I just added a new link onto my website called "Democratic Party" and I give a big (D) next to my name so now it is not so difficult to figure out that I am a Democrat.

I do see myself as a conservative Democrat but I am far from the ideas of the Republican Party and especially very far from the horrible Tea Party, but I do like the idea of my being viewed as leaning into socialism since that appears to offer the only true hope for humanity worldwide.

My campaign here in Maryland is proceeding very well and it might get better yet as the time draws nearer.

The voting date is April 3, 2012

You don't sound like any Democrat I know or have heard of unless they are behind on their Child Support. Why do you think Child Support is evil? Do you believe Divorce is evil? Are you an evangelical?

by oftenwrong Thu Nov 17, 2011 7:39 pm

Oh, Oh! Someone is about to secede from The Union.

by jstnay Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:02 pm

In California child support is done on a formula, she shows her W2 he shows his W2 or pay subs, if one makes more than the other then she pays and he receives child support. They don't care which it is, and that's as it should be. If you remarry, they then consider what he makes and that there are more people in the household and maybe more money. That's pretty much it here.

On the business of it didn't cost your parents $500 a month to raise you, what if they only had a 1bedroom house, children eat non stop, they grow out of their clothes overnight. You have no idea what you are talking about, unless you are older when it didn't cost as much for anyone.

by Shirina Thu Nov 17, 2011 9:04 pm

I never advocated that fetuses be afforded the same rights as a "person"...only that we need to address the obvious and glaring contradiction that a fetus is "not a person"

Actually ... you did. Yes, that was your original point, and admittedly I sidetracked the topic to be about this Mississippi referendum, but once we did start talking about the referendum, you defended it.

by jstnay Thu Nov 17, 2011 9:08 pm

http://votejp.webs.com/biographypage.htm

Mr. Cusick skipped out on his child support among other things. Mr. Cusick you get no sympathy from me but your children do.

I think Delaware can do better than you.

by Shirina Thu Nov 17, 2011 9:16 pm

On the business of it didn't cost your parents $500 a month to raise you, what if they only had a 1bedroom house, children eat non stop, they grow out of their clothes overnight. You have no idea what you are talking about, unless you are older when it didn't cost as much for anyone.

So what if they have a one bedroom house? If the couple couldn't afford a two bedroom house while they were together, why should the mother now be able to afford a two bedroom house once the couple is divorced?

As for clothing, you see, when the couple is together, they can save a truck-load of money by shopping for consignment baby clothes. Only the well-off or ignorant would keep plopping down stacks of cash to buy brand new baby clothes that, as you say, they will grow out of overnight. Everyone I know - and I do mean everyone - buys clothes for their young children from garage sales, second hand stores, e-Bay, etc. at a fraction of the cost it would be to buy clothes brand new. The courts seem to think that children of single moms deserve brand new clothes every couple of months and the poor sap who pays child support has to foot a bill he/she would probably not be paying if he/she was still married.

Yes, children eat non-stop, but they do so in small quantities. The biggest expense for parents involves wasted food that the child doesn't eat ... or won't eat. Children can be extraordinarily finicky eaters.

The point being here is that while the couple is together, they can find numerous cost-cutting ways to house, clothe, and feed their children. Any frugal family on a budget would do this. When child support payments are allocated, the courts look at an "average" cost to raise a child, and those costs are based on full retail market value. The process does NOT include taking into account all the ways parents save money by avoiding the retail price mark-up extravaganza.

by Shirina Thu Nov 17, 2011 9:20 pm

Mr. Cusick skipped out on his child support among other things.

I think you missed this part:

"Mr. Cusick did try to cooperate but the child support enforcement was too severely corrupt. So because of that corruption he was released from jail in a worse condition of homeless and destitute with the child support officials demanding more cash payments regardless of his condition"

However, to Mr. Cusick, I think someone needs to overhaul your biography page. It needs a lot of grammatical work. I would be happy to re-write it for you to give it a better professional-sounding quality. I mean no disrespect by saying this, but like I said: It does need some work.

For instance, the above sentence could be changed to:

"Despite Mr. Cusick's attempts to cooperate with child support officials, the corruption rampant within the system made such cooperation impossible. Instead, he was released from jail in a state of homelessness and destitution, and these factors played no part in deciding how much Mr. Cusick should pay. Even when there was no roof over his head, he was expected to pay increasing amounts of money for child support."

by jstnay Thu Nov 17, 2011 9:25 pm

Shirina wrote:
On the business of it didn't cost your parents $500 a month to raise you, what if they only had a 1bedroom house, children eat non stop, they grow out of their clothes overnight. You have no idea what you are talking about, unless you are older when it didn't cost as much for anyone.

So what if they have a one bedroom house? If the couple couldn't afford a two bedroom house while they were together, why should the mother now be able to afford a two bedroom house once the couple is divorced?

As for clothing, you see, when the couple is together, they can save a truck-load of money by shopping for consignment baby clothes. Only the well-off or ignorant would keep plopping down stacks of cash to buy brand new baby clothes that, as you say, they will grow out of overnight. Everyone I know - and I do mean everyone - buys clothes for their young children from garage sales, second hand stores, e-Bay, etc. at a fraction of the cost it would be to buy clothes brand new. The courts seem to think that children of single moms deserve brand new clothes every couple of months and the poor sap who pays child support has to foot a bill he/she would probably not be paying if he/she was still married.

Yes, children eat non-stop, but they do so in small quantities. The biggest expense for parents involves wasted food that the child doesn't eat ... or won't eat. Children can be extraordinarily finicky eaters.

The point being here is that while the couple is together, they can find numerous cost-cutting ways to house, clothe, and feed their children. Any frugal family on a budget would do this. When child support payments are allocated, the courts look at an "average" cost to raise a child, and those costs are based on full retail market value. The process does NOT include taking into account all the ways parents save money by avoiding the retail price mark-up extravaganza.

Do you think it's ok for your 12 yr.old Daughter to sleep in the same room with you? I don't, no way would I subject a tween to that or myself.
When she pays child support she will just have to take that into consideration and understand she will pay more as the child gets older if he/she isn't already.

In the State I live in it is cut and dried by a formula, you don't get anywhere begging family court for more than the formula.
Many people and I belive you are one think only MEN pay child support, not true.

by Sponsored content