ParentingBanter.com

ParentingBanter.com (http://www.parentingbanter.com/index.php)
-   Child Support (http://www.parentingbanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression (http://www.parentingbanter.com/showthread.php?t=44477)

Meldon Fens August 27th 06 03:05 PM

Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
 
In their current form, Child Support laws are driving fathers into poverty.
Non-custodial parents, primarily fathers, become unable to see their kids
and the kids lose the child support they are entitled to. At the very least,
low income fathers should be given some priority for government funding and
for employment.

Here are the simple economics of child support and how economic oppression
ruins fathers' lives and any chance at normalcy.

Let's take an average person earning $30K per year.

Child Support is based on pre-tax income. At this level and in most
countries, he will be required to pay between $250 and $300 per month per
child, equivalent to between $3000 and $3600 per year. He is taxed in most
countries at approximately %20 equivalent to $6000 (a conservative
estimate). As a result he will take home slightly more than $20,000.

Should he find himself in arrears with Child Support, he must pay up to but
no more than half of his gross income. In this example the equivalent of
$15,000 per year. He is left with $5000 per year with which to live,
including paying for a vehicle to see his kids.

Child Support laws require that any reduction in child support must show
three criteria for actual hardship one being that the Child Support is
causing the hardship. To do so, he needs to make an application to court
which takes a considerable amount of financial resources. In fact, any
application to court which is not self-represented will be next to
financially impossible including defence of false allegations of domestic
abuse or anything else the "mother" can think of to drive him into abject
poverty.

Most fathers do anything they can to continue paying child support and to
see their kids. Most would not argue that they should be contributing
financially toward their kids but there is no help available for these low
income fathers. Something must be done for low income fathers facing
debtor's prison and losing contact with their kids. It is after all with few
exceptions, in the child's best interest to continue to see their fathers
but government and advocacy groups do nothing for low income fathers,
ignoring the best interests of the chidren.

How long can this continue?



Hyerdahl August 27th 06 05:34 PM

Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
 

Meldon Fens wrote:

In their current form, Child Support laws are driving fathers into poverty.
Non-custodial parents, primarily fathers, become unable to see their kids
and the kids lose the child support they are entitled to. At the very least,
low income fathers should be given some priority for government funding and
for employment.


[Fathers are, and should be, obligated to support their children. And
govt. funding tends
to go TO children who are not being supported by fathers. ]

Here are the simple economics of child support and how economic oppression
ruins fathers' lives and any chance at normalcy.

Let's take an average person earning $30K per year.

Child Support is based on pre-tax income. At this level and in most
countries, he will be required to pay between $250 and $300 per month per
child, equivalent to between $3000 and $3600 per year. He is taxed in most
countries at approximately %20 equivalent to $6000 (a conservative
estimate). As a result he will take home slightly more than $20,000.

Should he find himself in arrears with Child Support, he must pay up to but
no more than half of his gross income. In this example the equivalent of
$15,000 per year. He is left with $5000 per year with which to live,
including paying for a vehicle to see his kids.


[A father who isn't living with his kids certainly has more free time
than a mother who is doing the child care. Such a father could even
get a part time job or educate himself to get better paid work.
Trying to blame arrearages on his children is not the answer here.]

Child Support laws require that any reduction in child support must show
three criteria for actual hardship one being that the Child Support is
causing the hardship. To do so, he needs to make an application to court
which takes a considerable amount of financial resources. In fact, any
application to court which is not self-represented will be next to
financially impossible including defence of false allegations of domestic
abuse or anything else the "mother" can think of to drive him into abject
poverty.


[Oh 'puleeeeeeze'; no one is going to buy THAT sob story. Pay your
child support and be done with it. The court is there to assess both
income and hardships, and it isn't likely to change.]


Most fathers do anything they can to continue paying child support and to
see their kids. Most would not argue that they should be contributing
financially toward their kids but there is no help available for these low
income fathers. Something must be done for low income fathers facing
debtor's prison and losing contact with their kids. It is after all with few
exceptions, in the child's best interest to continue to see their fathers
but government and advocacy groups do nothing for low income fathers,
ignoring the best interests of the chidren.


Actually, the child's "best interests" are determined on a case by case
basis and sometimes it is NOT in a child's "best interests" to see
their fathers. Fathers who are abusive or negligent are certainly in
that category. Govts. only have so much money for social services
and children will get that money long before fathers do.


Werebat August 27th 06 06:53 PM

Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
 


Hyerdahl wrote:

Meldon Fens wrote:


In their current form, Child Support laws are driving fathers into poverty.
Non-custodial parents, primarily fathers, become unable to see their kids
and the kids lose the child support they are entitled to. At the very least,
low income fathers should be given some priority for government funding and
for employment.



[Fathers are, and should be, obligated to support their children. And
govt. funding tends
to go TO children who are not being supported by fathers. ]


Here are the simple economics of child support and how economic oppression
ruins fathers' lives and any chance at normalcy.

Let's take an average person earning $30K per year.

Child Support is based on pre-tax income. At this level and in most
countries, he will be required to pay between $250 and $300 per month per
child, equivalent to between $3000 and $3600 per year. He is taxed in most
countries at approximately %20 equivalent to $6000 (a conservative
estimate). As a result he will take home slightly more than $20,000.

Should he find himself in arrears with Child Support, he must pay up to but
no more than half of his gross income. In this example the equivalent of
$15,000 per year. He is left with $5000 per year with which to live,
including paying for a vehicle to see his kids.



[A father who isn't living with his kids certainly has more free time
than a mother who is doing the child care. Such a father could even
get a part time job or educate himself to get better paid work.
Trying to blame arrearages on his children is not the answer here.]


Child Support laws require that any reduction in child support must show
three criteria for actual hardship one being that the Child Support is
causing the hardship. To do so, he needs to make an application to court
which takes a considerable amount of financial resources. In fact, any
application to court which is not self-represented will be next to
financially impossible including defence of false allegations of domestic
abuse or anything else the "mother" can think of to drive him into abject
poverty.



[Oh 'puleeeeeeze'; no one is going to buy THAT sob story. Pay your
child support and be done with it. The court is there to assess both
income and hardships, and it isn't likely to change.]


Most fathers do anything they can to continue paying child support and to
see their kids. Most would not argue that they should be contributing
financially toward their kids but there is no help available for these low
income fathers. Something must be done for low income fathers facing
debtor's prison and losing contact with their kids. It is after all with few
exceptions, in the child's best interest to continue to see their fathers
but government and advocacy groups do nothing for low income fathers,
ignoring the best interests of the chidren.



Actually, the child's "best interests" are determined on a case by case
basis and sometimes it is NOT in a child's "best interests" to see
their fathers. Fathers who are abusive or negligent are certainly in
that category. Govts. only have so much money for social services
and children will get that money long before fathers do.


Hyerdahl, what is your family court and CSE experience? I believe I
have told you mine and you never comment on it; I suspect you'd like to
sweep the real stories of government abuse of fathers under the carpet,
at best giving them a dimissive nod and a comment like, "well, sure,
every system has it's occasional problems..."

- Ron ^*^


Col. Tuttle USAF NI August 27th 06 07:21 PM

Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
 

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:V%kIg.2199$Zm1.1201@dukeread02...


Hyerdahl wrote:

Meldon Fens wrote:


In their current form, Child Support laws are driving fathers into

poverty.
Non-custodial parents, primarily fathers, become unable to see their

kids
and the kids lose the child support they are entitled to. At the very

least,
low income fathers should be given some priority for government funding

and
for employment.



[Fathers are, and should be, obligated to support their children. And
govt. funding tends
to go TO children who are not being supported by fathers. ]


Here are the simple economics of child support and how economic

oppression
ruins fathers' lives and any chance at normalcy.

Let's take an average person earning $30K per year.

Child Support is based on pre-tax income. At this level and in most
countries, he will be required to pay between $250 and $300 per month

per
child, equivalent to between $3000 and $3600 per year. He is taxed in

most
countries at approximately %20 equivalent to $6000 (a conservative
estimate). As a result he will take home slightly more than $20,000.

Should he find himself in arrears with Child Support, he must pay up to

but
no more than half of his gross income. In this example the equivalent of
$15,000 per year. He is left with $5000 per year with which to live,
including paying for a vehicle to see his kids.



[A father who isn't living with his kids certainly has more free time
than a mother who is doing the child care. Such a father could even
get a part time job or educate himself to get better paid work.
Trying to blame arrearages on his children is not the answer here.]


Child Support laws require that any reduction in child support must show
three criteria for actual hardship one being that the Child Support is
causing the hardship. To do so, he needs to make an application to court
which takes a considerable amount of financial resources. In fact, any
application to court which is not self-represented will be next to
financially impossible including defence of false allegations of

domestic
abuse or anything else the "mother" can think of to drive him into

abject
poverty.



[Oh 'puleeeeeeze'; no one is going to buy THAT sob story. Pay your
child support and be done with it. The court is there to assess both
income and hardships, and it isn't likely to change.]


Most fathers do anything they can to continue paying child support and

to
see their kids. Most would not argue that they should be contributing
financially toward their kids but there is no help available for these

low
income fathers. Something must be done for low income fathers facing
debtor's prison and losing contact with their kids. It is after all with

few
exceptions, in the child's best interest to continue to see their

fathers
but government and advocacy groups do nothing for low income fathers,
ignoring the best interests of the chidren.



Actually, the child's "best interests" are determined on a case by case
basis and sometimes it is NOT in a child's "best interests" to see
their fathers. Fathers who are abusive or negligent are certainly in
that category. Govts. only have so much money for social services
and children will get that money long before fathers do.


Hyerdahl, what is your family court and CSE experience? I believe I
have told you mine and you never comment on it; I suspect you'd like to
sweep the real stories of government abuse of fathers under the carpet,
at best giving them a dimissive nod and a comment like, "well, sure,
every system has it's occasional problems..."


People like him like to remain willfuly ignorant on these issues.....their
scum!



- Ron ^*^




Meldon Fens August 27th 06 08:42 PM

Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
 

"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
ps.com...

.....

Govts. only have so much money for social services
and children will get that money long before fathers do.


Wrong Hyderstench. WOMEN get the money. Order of priority for funds for
training and employment is, women, youth, minorities, handicapped. You're so
full of crap I can smell you from here. Your previous points are hardly
worth discussing. Anyone can see how painfully skewed they are but keep up
the good work. So far the big bag of lies is working fine.



Meldon Fens August 27th 06 08:46 PM

Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
 

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:V%kIg.2199$Zm1.1201@dukeread02...


..

Hyerdahl, what is your family court and CSE experience? I believe I
have told you mine and you never comment on it; I suspect you'd like to
sweep the real stories of government abuse of fathers under the carpet,
at best giving them a dimissive nod and a comment like, "well, sure,
every system has it's occasional problems..."

- Ron ^*^


Just see how effective that argument is for a father driven into poverty.
The best he can hope for is a bunch of grunts followed by a bunch of
laughter. We're all catching on though. That laughter is strained at best
and is a thinly veiled disguise for a fear that the truth will be uncovered
and all that funding dries up. What will the fat, gold-digging whores do
then?



Meldon Fens August 27th 06 08:47 PM

Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
 

"Col. Tuttle USAF NI" Col. Tuttle USAF
ash.us wrote in message
news:molIg.20972$tP4.15290@clgrps12...

....

People like him like to remain willfuly ignorant on these issues.....their
scum!


Hyderpork is a guy?



teachrmama August 27th 06 09:40 PM

Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
 

"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
ps.com...

Meldon Fens wrote:

In their current form, Child Support laws are driving fathers into
poverty.
Non-custodial parents, primarily fathers, become unable to see their kids
and the kids lose the child support they are entitled to. At the very
least,
low income fathers should be given some priority for government funding
and
for employment.


[Fathers are, and should be, obligated to support their children. And
govt. funding tends
to go TO children who are not being supported by fathers. ]

Here are the simple economics of child support and how economic
oppression
ruins fathers' lives and any chance at normalcy.

Let's take an average person earning $30K per year.

Child Support is based on pre-tax income. At this level and in most
countries, he will be required to pay between $250 and $300 per month per
child, equivalent to between $3000 and $3600 per year. He is taxed in
most
countries at approximately %20 equivalent to $6000 (a conservative
estimate). As a result he will take home slightly more than $20,000.

Should he find himself in arrears with Child Support, he must pay up to
but
no more than half of his gross income. In this example the equivalent of
$15,000 per year. He is left with $5000 per year with which to live,
including paying for a vehicle to see his kids.


[A father who isn't living with his kids certainly has more free time
than a mother who is doing the child care. Such a father could even
get a part time job or educate himself to get better paid work.
Trying to blame arrearages on his children is not the answer here.]

Child Support laws require that any reduction in child support must show
three criteria for actual hardship one being that the Child Support is
causing the hardship. To do so, he needs to make an application to court
which takes a considerable amount of financial resources. In fact, any
application to court which is not self-represented will be next to
financially impossible including defence of false allegations of domestic
abuse or anything else the "mother" can think of to drive him into abject
poverty.


[Oh 'puleeeeeeze'; no one is going to buy THAT sob story. Pay your
child support and be done with it. The court is there to assess both
income and hardships, and it isn't likely to change.]


Most fathers do anything they can to continue paying child support and to
see their kids. Most would not argue that they should be contributing
financially toward their kids but there is no help available for these
low
income fathers. Something must be done for low income fathers facing
debtor's prison and losing contact with their kids. It is after all with
few
exceptions, in the child's best interest to continue to see their fathers
but government and advocacy groups do nothing for low income fathers,
ignoring the best interests of the chidren.


Actually, the child's "best interests" are determined on a case by case
basis and sometimes it is NOT in a child's "best interests" to see
their fathers. Fathers who are abusive or negligent are certainly in
that category. Govts. only have so much money for social services
and children will get that money long before fathers do.


Heck, Hy, *everyone* gets money before fathers do. Illegal aliens and
foreign interests get money before fathers do!




Werebat August 27th 06 09:42 PM

Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
 


Meldon Fens wrote:
"Werebat" wrote in message
news:V%kIg.2199$Zm1.1201@dukeread02...


..


Hyerdahl, what is your family court and CSE experience? I believe I
have told you mine and you never comment on it; I suspect you'd like to
sweep the real stories of government abuse of fathers under the carpet,
at best giving them a dimissive nod and a comment like, "well, sure,
every system has it's occasional problems..."

- Ron ^*^



Just see how effective that argument is for a father driven into poverty.
The best he can hope for is a bunch of grunts followed by a bunch of
laughter. We're all catching on though. That laughter is strained at best
and is a thinly veiled disguise for a fear that the truth will be uncovered
and all that funding dries up. What will the fat, gold-digging whores do
then?


Society will always protect do-nothings who have responsibility to
children, because it isn't good PR to let children suffer for their
parents' shiftlessness.

One step in the right direction would be always awarding custody to the
financially solvent parent, barring a proven history of abuse or neglect.

- Ron ^*^


Hyerdahl August 27th 06 09:50 PM

Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
 

Werebat wrote:
Hyerdahl wrote:

Meldon Fens wrote:


In their current form, Child Support laws are driving fathers into poverty.
Non-custodial parents, primarily fathers, become unable to see their kids
and the kids lose the child support they are entitled to. At the very least,
low income fathers should be given some priority for government funding and
for employment.



[Fathers are, and should be, obligated to support their children. And
govt. funding tends to go TO children who are not being supported by fathers. ]


Here are the simple economics of child support and how economic oppression
ruins fathers' lives and any chance at normalcy.

Let's take an average person earning $30K per year.

Child Support is based on pre-tax income. At this level and in most
countries, he will be required to pay between $250 and $300 per month per
child, equivalent to between $3000 and $3600 per year. He is taxed in most
countries at approximately %20 equivalent to $6000 (a conservative
estimate). As a result he will take home slightly more than $20,000.

Should he find himself in arrears with Child Support, he must pay up to but
no more than half of his gross income. In this example the equivalent of
$15,000 per year. He is left with $5000 per year with which to live,
including paying for a vehicle to see his kids.


[A father who isn't living with his kids certainly has more free time
than a mother who is doing the child care. Such a father could even
get a part time job or educate himself to get better paid work.
Trying to blame arrearages on his children is not the answer here.]


Child Support laws require that any reduction in child support must show
three criteria for actual hardship one being that the Child Support is
causing the hardship. To do so, he needs to make an application to court
which takes a considerable amount of financial resources. In fact, any
application to court which is not self-represented will be next to
financially impossible including defence of false allegations of domestic
abuse or anything else the "mother" can think of to drive him into abject
poverty.



[Oh 'puleeeeeeze'; no one is going to buy THAT sob story. Pay your
child support and be done with it. The court is there to assess both
income and hardships, and it isn't likely to change.]


Most fathers do anything they can to continue paying child support and to
see their kids. Most would not argue that they should be contributing
financially toward their kids but there is no help available for these low
income fathers. Something must be done for low income fathers facing
debtor's prison and losing contact with their kids. It is after all with few
exceptions, in the child's best interest to continue to see their fathers
but government and advocacy groups do nothing for low income fathers,
ignoring the best interests of the chidren.



Actually, the child's "best interests" are determined on a case by case
basis and sometimes it is NOT in a child's "best interests" to see
their fathers. Fathers who are abusive or negligent are certainly in
that category. Govts. only have so much money for social services
and children will get that money long before fathers do.


Hyerdahl, what is your family court and CSE experience?


Why would that be pertinent to my OPINION based on the FACTS as
mentioned above? Do you _really_ think you must have litigation or
judicial experience in family court to debate these issues? Or are you
just self-aggrandizing, here? I have no need to tell you my
experience in order to tell you the facts that I have placed above.
Facts are facts whether a judge gives them or even a humble pizza
delivery person. :-)

I believe I have told you mine and you never comment on it; I
suspect you'd like to
sweep the real stories of government abuse of fathers under the carpet,
at best giving them a dimissive nod and a comment like, "well, sure,
every system has it's occasional problems..."


Again, I don't recall what experience you say you have, but those
things that I have mentioned above are FACTS about family law and not
mere stories about some fathers.
I prefer fact to fiction.



- Ron ^*^




All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:13 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
ParentingBanter.com