![]() |
Interesting book and interesting idea
This is the first chapter of an interesting book:
http://www.supportguidelines.com/book/chap1a.html And it mentions an interesting idea: "Some commentators believe that given the continually expansive role of the federal government into heretofore matters of family law that were the exclusive province of the states, it is surely only a matter of time until the federal government adopts a national child support guideline model." I wonder if it might not be a GOOD thing for NCPs if the federal government DID implement a national child support guideline model. Oh, I'm sure it would be as unfair, clunky, and cumbersome as anything the states have now, and you can be sure it would be based on recommendations from Policy Studies, Inc... But it would also provide the scattered men's rights groups with a unifying target to take aim against, instead of keeping them divided and conquered. Instead of trying to fight 50 different sets of state laws, they'd only be challenging one (albeit federal) set of laws. Any comments? - Ron ^*^ |
In article q1k%d.66018$7z6.21714@lakeread04, Werebat says...
This is the first chapter of an interesting book: http://www.supportguidelines.com/book/chap1a.html And it mentions an interesting idea: "Some commentators believe that given the continually expansive role of the federal government into heretofore matters of family law that were the exclusive province of the states, it is surely only a matter of time until the federal government adopts a national child support guideline model." I wonder if it might not be a GOOD thing for NCPs if the federal government DID implement a national child support guideline model. ==== I have always been a proponent of a federal CS system. I see it as the only possibility of a constitutionally compliant system. That's why it will never happen. The states will never ever agree to give up the money and control. Too, the feds would never want the onerous burden of enforcement. ==== ==== |
What would be BEST, if child support guidelines become federal, would
be for a requirement that any committee formulating such guidelines contain equal percentages of people from varying groups (i.e. NCP's, CP's, spouses of NCP's, spouses of CP's) so that all concerns are represented. Wouldn't it be better to "get it right" from the beginning than to fight it later? As a CP, I'd be willing to sit on such a committee... and my views are not what is considered "mainstream CP." For instance, my eldest child's father (to whom I was not married) made it very clear that he desired I abort. I made a unilateral decision to not and, therefore, felt fine with never asking for his help in raising my child. I never believed he owed me or my child anything because I made a decision which he could not. For the record, my child never suffered from not knowing his father and had plenty of wonderful male role models (to include my brother). It is akin to my asking my mother how she felt about being an only child to which her response was that she never missed what she did not have... it seemed normal to her as it had always been. I have a personal belief that men should have the same rights as women upon learning of conception. In that vein, it would behoove women to seek confirmation of pregnancy early enough to allow the man to make his decision so that she may make hers as well. Can't find the father? Notification procedures as in any other legal proceeding should suffice. Then there is the issue of child support awards of divorcing couples. I say there should be a 50/50 split in custody/expenses unless there is a compelling reason not to. And even then, a child support award should never go beyond the basics. Discretionary spending should remain discretionary. If the divorce is for cause, punitive damages should not be hidden in child support awards. Spousal support should always be called what it is and not be hidden in child support awards. For the record, every state has adopted a "minimal need for support" for children already... it is in the welfare guidelines. Although I disagree with the welfare guidelines in my state (I have a friend who receives benefits), I can see coming up with a reasonable minimal need and factoring it based upon each state's cost of living difference. At any rate, a millionaire should be no more indebted to the child support machine than a minimum wage worker... if it is truly based upon a child's NEEDS. The millionaire may choose to make discretionary expenditures for the children, but I seriously doubt that the children would be living in poverty if there was no pre-nup. And if there was, it should have included provisions for children that would be above and beyond minimal needs. I ALSO believe that, should guidelines go federal, that the IRS is going to have to make some changes as well. If a man, for instance, is ordered to pay 75% of the children needs, then he should be entitled to 75% of the deductions. It would not be so hard for the IRS to account for a percentage based upon a legal document. On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 14:21:46 -0500, Werebat wrote: This is the first chapter of an interesting book: http://www.supportguidelines.com/book/chap1a.html And it mentions an interesting idea: "Some commentators believe that given the continually expansive role of the federal government into heretofore matters of family law that were the exclusive province of the states, it is surely only a matter of time until the federal government adopts a national child support guideline model." I wonder if it might not be a GOOD thing for NCPs if the federal government DID implement a national child support guideline model. Oh, I'm sure it would be as unfair, clunky, and cumbersome as anything the states have now, and you can be sure it would be based on recommendations from Policy Studies, Inc... But it would also provide the scattered men's rights groups with a unifying target to take aim against, instead of keeping them divided and conquered. Instead of trying to fight 50 different sets of state laws, they'd only be challenging one (albeit federal) set of laws. Any comments? - Ron ^*^ |
I applaud you for your thoughts/beliefs and most of all your actions.
Reasonable, rational, fair.......hmmmmm More women should think like you. "Beverly" wrote in message ... What would be BEST, if child support guidelines become federal, would be for a requirement that any committee formulating such guidelines contain equal percentages of people from varying groups (i.e. NCP's, CP's, spouses of NCP's, spouses of CP's) so that all concerns are represented. Wouldn't it be better to "get it right" from the beginning than to fight it later? As a CP, I'd be willing to sit on such a committee... and my views are not what is considered "mainstream CP." For instance, my eldest child's father (to whom I was not married) made it very clear that he desired I abort. I made a unilateral decision to not and, therefore, felt fine with never asking for his help in raising my child. I never believed he owed me or my child anything because I made a decision which he could not. For the record, my child never suffered from not knowing his father and had plenty of wonderful male role models (to include my brother). It is akin to my asking my mother how she felt about being an only child to which her response was that she never missed what she did not have... it seemed normal to her as it had always been. I have a personal belief that men should have the same rights as women upon learning of conception. In that vein, it would behoove women to seek confirmation of pregnancy early enough to allow the man to make his decision so that she may make hers as well. Can't find the father? Notification procedures as in any other legal proceeding should suffice. Then there is the issue of child support awards of divorcing couples. I say there should be a 50/50 split in custody/expenses unless there is a compelling reason not to. And even then, a child support award should never go beyond the basics. Discretionary spending should remain discretionary. If the divorce is for cause, punitive damages should not be hidden in child support awards. Spousal support should always be called what it is and not be hidden in child support awards. For the record, every state has adopted a "minimal need for support" for children already... it is in the welfare guidelines. Although I disagree with the welfare guidelines in my state (I have a friend who receives benefits), I can see coming up with a reasonable minimal need and factoring it based upon each state's cost of living difference. At any rate, a millionaire should be no more indebted to the child support machine than a minimum wage worker... if it is truly based upon a child's NEEDS. The millionaire may choose to make discretionary expenditures for the children, but I seriously doubt that the children would be living in poverty if there was no pre-nup. And if there was, it should have included provisions for children that would be above and beyond minimal needs. I ALSO believe that, should guidelines go federal, that the IRS is going to have to make some changes as well. If a man, for instance, is ordered to pay 75% of the children needs, then he should be entitled to 75% of the deductions. It would not be so hard for the IRS to account for a percentage based upon a legal document. On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 14:21:46 -0500, Werebat wrote: This is the first chapter of an interesting book: http://www.supportguidelines.com/book/chap1a.html And it mentions an interesting idea: "Some commentators believe that given the continually expansive role of the federal government into heretofore matters of family law that were the exclusive province of the states, it is surely only a matter of time until the federal government adopts a national child support guideline model." I wonder if it might not be a GOOD thing for NCPs if the federal government DID implement a national child support guideline model. Oh, I'm sure it would be as unfair, clunky, and cumbersome as anything the states have now, and you can be sure it would be based on recommendations from Policy Studies, Inc... But it would also provide the scattered men's rights groups with a unifying target to take aim against, instead of keeping them divided and conquered. Instead of trying to fight 50 different sets of state laws, they'd only be challenging one (albeit federal) set of laws. Any comments? - Ron ^*^ |
"Werebat" wrote in message news:q1k%d.66018$7z6.21714@lakeread04... This is the first chapter of an interesting book: http://www.supportguidelines.com/book/chap1a.html And it mentions an interesting idea: "Some commentators believe that given the continually expansive role of the federal government into heretofore matters of family law that were the exclusive province of the states, it is surely only a matter of time until the federal government adopts a national child support guideline model." I wonder if it might not be a GOOD thing for NCPs if the federal government DID implement a national child support guideline model. Oh, I'm sure it would be as unfair, clunky, and cumbersome as anything the states have now, and you can be sure it would be based on recommendations from Policy Studies, Inc... But it would also provide the scattered men's rights groups with a unifying target to take aim against, instead of keeping them divided and conquered. Instead of trying to fight 50 different sets of state laws, they'd only be challenging one (albeit federal) set of laws. We already have a national CS guideline model. The program started in 1974 with passage of Title IV-D of the Social Security Act that tied together Aid to Dependent Children and CS. In 1984 Congress added services to non-ADC family CS laws. In 1988 Congress passed the Family Support Act adding paternity establishment, use of CS guidelines, mandatory income withholding, and periodic review of CS orders. In 1996 ADC was replaced with TANF, and changes were made to paternity establishment, use of locator services, added enforcement tools, and rules on how collects would be dispersed. 2/3 of the costs of implementing the CS guideline system are paid for by the federal government. Federal incentive payments to the states reward additional money to the states for compliance with federal CS programs. We have federal laws regarding felonies for crossing state lines to avoid paying CS, we have a federal $4 billion computer system to track everyone who works, we have federal systems to track interstate CS orders, and we have international treaties that facilitate enforcement of international CS orders. Anyone advocating for more federal involvement in CS, like a federal standardized CS amount, is asking for more problems than we have already. At least the current system allows for local state input into the guideline dollar amounts. There is already too much federal involvement in the CS guidelines. |
Bob Whiteside wrote: "Werebat" wrote in message news:q1k%d.66018$7z6.21714@lakeread04... This is the first chapter of an interesting book: http://www.supportguidelines.com/book/chap1a.html And it mentions an interesting idea: "Some commentators believe that given the continually expansive role of the federal government into heretofore matters of family law that were the exclusive province of the states, it is surely only a matter of time until the federal government adopts a national child support guideline model." I wonder if it might not be a GOOD thing for NCPs if the federal government DID implement a national child support guideline model. Oh, I'm sure it would be as unfair, clunky, and cumbersome as anything the states have now, and you can be sure it would be based on recommendations from Policy Studies, Inc... But it would also provide the scattered men's rights groups with a unifying target to take aim against, instead of keeping them divided and conquered. Instead of trying to fight 50 different sets of state laws, they'd only be challenging one (albeit federal) set of laws. We already have a national CS guideline model. The program started in 1974 with passage of Title IV-D of the Social Security Act that tied together Aid to Dependent Children and CS. In 1984 Congress added services to non-ADC family CS laws. In 1988 Congress passed the Family Support Act adding paternity establishment, use of CS guidelines, mandatory income withholding, and periodic review of CS orders. In 1996 ADC was replaced with TANF, and changes were made to paternity establishment, use of locator services, added enforcement tools, and rules on how collects would be dispersed. 2/3 of the costs of implementing the CS guideline system are paid for by the federal government. Federal incentive payments to the states reward additional money to the states for compliance with federal CS programs. We have federal laws regarding felonies for crossing state lines to avoid paying CS, we have a federal $4 billion computer system to track everyone who works, we have federal systems to track interstate CS orders, and we have international treaties that facilitate enforcement of international CS orders. Anyone advocating for more federal involvement in CS, like a federal standardized CS amount, is asking for more problems than we have already. At least the current system allows for local state input into the guideline dollar amounts. There is already too much federal involvement in the CS guidelines. Which breaks them apart into 50 little petty fiefs that men must try to organize themselves against. Imagine if they could pool their resources against just ONE. - Ron ^*^ |
"Werebat" wrote in message news:rEn%d.66044$7z6.61623@lakeread04... Bob Whiteside wrote: "Werebat" wrote in message news:q1k%d.66018$7z6.21714@lakeread04... This is the first chapter of an interesting book: http://www.supportguidelines.com/book/chap1a.html And it mentions an interesting idea: "Some commentators believe that given the continually expansive role of the federal government into heretofore matters of family law that were the exclusive province of the states, it is surely only a matter of time until the federal government adopts a national child support guideline model." I wonder if it might not be a GOOD thing for NCPs if the federal government DID implement a national child support guideline model. Oh, I'm sure it would be as unfair, clunky, and cumbersome as anything the states have now, and you can be sure it would be based on recommendations from Policy Studies, Inc... But it would also provide the scattered men's rights groups with a unifying target to take aim against, instead of keeping them divided and conquered. Instead of trying to fight 50 different sets of state laws, they'd only be challenging one (albeit federal) set of laws. We already have a national CS guideline model. The program started in 1974 with passage of Title IV-D of the Social Security Act that tied together Aid to Dependent Children and CS. In 1984 Congress added services to non-ADC family CS laws. In 1988 Congress passed the Family Support Act adding paternity establishment, use of CS guidelines, mandatory income withholding, and periodic review of CS orders. In 1996 ADC was replaced with TANF, and changes were made to paternity establishment, use of locator services, added enforcement tools, and rules on how collects would be dispersed. 2/3 of the costs of implementing the CS guideline system are paid for by the federal government. Federal incentive payments to the states reward additional money to the states for compliance with federal CS programs. We have federal laws regarding felonies for crossing state lines to avoid paying CS, we have a federal $4 billion computer system to track everyone who works, we have federal systems to track interstate CS orders, and we have international treaties that facilitate enforcement of international CS orders. Anyone advocating for more federal involvement in CS, like a federal standardized CS amount, is asking for more problems than we have already. At least the current system allows for local state input into the guideline dollar amounts. There is already too much federal involvement in the CS guidelines. Which breaks them apart into 50 little petty fiefs that men must try to organize themselves against. Imagine if they could pool their resources against just ONE. Have you considered that advocating this change to marriage law (which includes things like divorce, SS, and CS) is a constitutional issue that would alter current states' rights? |
Bob Whiteside wrote: "Werebat" wrote in message news:rEn%d.66044$7z6.61623@lakeread04... Bob Whiteside wrote: "Werebat" wrote in message news:q1k%d.66018$7z6.21714@lakeread04... This is the first chapter of an interesting book: http://www.supportguidelines.com/book/chap1a.html And it mentions an interesting idea: "Some commentators believe that given the continually expansive role of the federal government into heretofore matters of family law that were the exclusive province of the states, it is surely only a matter of time until the federal government adopts a national child support guideline model." I wonder if it might not be a GOOD thing for NCPs if the federal government DID implement a national child support guideline model. Oh, I'm sure it would be as unfair, clunky, and cumbersome as anything the states have now, and you can be sure it would be based on recommendations from Policy Studies, Inc... But it would also provide the scattered men's rights groups with a unifying target to take aim against, instead of keeping them divided and conquered. Instead of trying to fight 50 different sets of state laws, they'd only be challenging one (albeit federal) set of laws. We already have a national CS guideline model. The program started in 1974 with passage of Title IV-D of the Social Security Act that tied together Aid to Dependent Children and CS. In 1984 Congress added services to non-ADC family CS laws. In 1988 Congress passed the Family Support Act adding paternity establishment, use of CS guidelines, mandatory income withholding, and periodic review of CS orders. In 1996 ADC was replaced with TANF, and changes were made to paternity establishment, use of locator services, added enforcement tools, and rules on how collects would be dispersed. 2/3 of the costs of implementing the CS guideline system are paid for by the federal government. Federal incentive payments to the states reward additional money to the states for compliance with federal CS programs. We have federal laws regarding felonies for crossing state lines to avoid paying CS, we have a federal $4 billion computer system to track everyone who works, we have federal systems to track interstate CS orders, and we have international treaties that facilitate enforcement of international CS orders. Anyone advocating for more federal involvement in CS, like a federal standardized CS amount, is asking for more problems than we have already. At least the current system allows for local state input into the guideline dollar amounts. There is already too much federal involvement in the CS guidelines. Which breaks them apart into 50 little petty fiefs that men must try to organize themselves against. Imagine if they could pool their resources against just ONE. Have you considered that advocating this change to marriage law (which includes things like divorce, SS, and CS) is a constitutional issue that would alter current states' rights? Seems to me like that's already been done, hasn't it? - Ron ^*^ |
"Werebat" wrote in message news:wTo%d.66092$7z6.51220@lakeread04... Bob Whiteside wrote: "Werebat" wrote in message news:rEn%d.66044$7z6.61623@lakeread04... Bob Whiteside wrote: "Werebat" wrote in message news:q1k%d.66018$7z6.21714@lakeread04... This is the first chapter of an interesting book: http://www.supportguidelines.com/book/chap1a.html And it mentions an interesting idea: "Some commentators believe that given the continually expansive role of the federal government into heretofore matters of family law that were the exclusive province of the states, it is surely only a matter of time until the federal government adopts a national child support guideline model." I wonder if it might not be a GOOD thing for NCPs if the federal government DID implement a national child support guideline model. Oh, I'm sure it would be as unfair, clunky, and cumbersome as anything the states have now, and you can be sure it would be based on recommendations from Policy Studies, Inc... But it would also provide the scattered men's rights groups with a unifying target to take aim against, instead of keeping them divided and conquered. Instead of trying to fight 50 different sets of state laws, they'd only be challenging one (albeit federal) set of laws. We already have a national CS guideline model. The program started in 1974 with passage of Title IV-D of the Social Security Act that tied together Aid to Dependent Children and CS. In 1984 Congress added services to non-ADC family CS laws. In 1988 Congress passed the Family Support Act adding paternity establishment, use of CS guidelines, mandatory income withholding, and periodic review of CS orders. In 1996 ADC was replaced with TANF, and changes were made to paternity establishment, use of locator services, added enforcement tools, and rules on how collects would be dispersed. 2/3 of the costs of implementing the CS guideline system are paid for by the federal government. Federal incentive payments to the states reward additional money to the states for compliance with federal CS programs. We have federal laws regarding felonies for crossing state lines to avoid paying CS, we have a federal $4 billion computer system to track everyone who works, we have federal systems to track interstate CS orders, and we have international treaties that facilitate enforcement of international CS orders. Anyone advocating for more federal involvement in CS, like a federal standardized CS amount, is asking for more problems than we have already. At least the current system allows for local state input into the guideline dollar amounts. There is already too much federal involvement in the CS guidelines. Which breaks them apart into 50 little petty fiefs that men must try to organize themselves against. Imagine if they could pool their resources against just ONE. Have you considered that advocating this change to marriage law (which includes things like divorce, SS, and CS) is a constitutional issue that would alter current states' rights? Seems to me like that's already been done, hasn't it? Technically, no! But taking this to the next stage could really cause a constitutional crisis. There is a huge difference between telling a state they have a choice to accept broad federal guidelines on how to administrate CS programs to share in federal money versus actually creating the program (CS guidelines) with details they must adopt. I have been concerned for some time about the proposed U.S. Constitutional amendment regarding same-sex marriage. Once the topic of marriage is codified in the constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court could start injecting itself into marriage even further. The activist court has already been dictating to the states on other states' rights issues like election law, sodomy law, abortion law, death penalty law, etc. Your original source is a group of lawyers who are active in the American Bar Association. They want to change family law to benefit lawyers, not fathers. |
yea, then, instead of 50 there'd be 51. the federal model and all the states
clones... which already exists. heavy reading, but statues of law are informative... if you can get around the over accurate legaleese; intended to clarify, but usually only to the consistency of liquid clay, or bentonite slurry. jd "Werebat" wrote in message news:q1k%d.66018$7z6.21714@lakeread04... This is the first chapter of an interesting book: http://www.supportguidelines.com/book/chap1a.html And it mentions an interesting idea: "Some commentators believe that given the continually expansive role of the federal government into heretofore matters of family law that were the exclusive province of the states, it is surely only a matter of time until the federal government adopts a national child support guideline model." I wonder if it might not be a GOOD thing for NCPs if the federal government DID implement a national child support guideline model. Oh, I'm sure it would be as unfair, clunky, and cumbersome as anything the states have now, and you can be sure it would be based on recommendations from Policy Studies, Inc... But it would also provide the scattered men's rights groups with a unifying target to take aim against, instead of keeping them divided and conquered. Instead of trying to fight 50 different sets of state laws, they'd only be challenging one (albeit federal) set of laws. Any comments? - Ron ^*^ |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:18 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
ParentingBanter.com