Hyerdahl wrote:
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?

So, you aren't going to answer my question?


Do you _really_ think you must have litigation or
judicial experience in family court to debate these issues?

No, of course not, but IME the vast majority of people who choose to
comment on the present family court situation have had some experience
with it, or a group connected to it in some way.


Or are you just self-aggrandizing, here?

You've made it clear that that's what you think.


I have no need to tell you my
experience in order to tell you the facts that I have placed above.

Let's examine those fact, shall we?

You claim:

1. Fathers are, and should be, obligated to support their children.

No problem with this one as stated, but the devil is in the details.
First, this statement -- like the federal forms that need to be signed
when a child is born out of wedlock in order to get the father's name on
the birth certificate -- makes no mention of the *mother's* obligation
to support her children. Do you think that mothers should also be
obligated to support their children?

Also, the Devil's detail is the definition of "support" and the extent
of "support" that a father and mother is obligated to provide for their
child.

I think almost everyone on these forums would agree that parents should
support their children. I agree with that broad statement. That
doesn't mean that I think the current family court and CS system isn't
horribly flawed.

Another fact you claim:

2. Govt. funding tends to go TO children who are not being supported by
fathers.

OK. I have no reason to argue about this.

Your third claimed fact:

3. A father who isn't living with his kids certainly has more free time
than a mother who is doing the child care.

A father who works full-time and then cares for the kids 30% of the
time, which is the standard for NCP awards, may well have less free time
than a mother who doesn't work and has the kids 70% of the time. He
also won't often have free time on the weekends like she will.

If you mean a father who never sees his kids, well, sure. That doesn't
mean that the family courts are just or treat anyone in a fair way, though.

Your fourth claimed fact:

4. 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.

I didn't see anyone trying to blame arrearages on the children. Where
did this come from? Looks like your playing a weasel-word game here.

Your fifth claimed fact:

5. 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.

It is indeed the court's responsbility to assess income and hardships,
and indeed that isn't likely to change. That doesn't mean that the
court is doing its job adequately, however, now does it?

Your sixth claimed fact:

6. 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.

Yep. I agree with you. But when the courts abuse their power and
remove men who have NOT been abusive or negligent from the lives of
their kids, the courts are harming both fathers and children.

You are making statements that are impossible for rational people to
disagree with, but the statements don't really contradict anything that
the OP says.

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.

Facts that don't actually have much to do with the very real complaints
that many fathers have about their treatment in the family courts.

I prefer fact to fiction.

But you have to look at the WHOLE truth, Hyerdahl.

- Ron ^*^