"Stealing for mommies" adf wrote in message
...
Historically, the amount of child support awarded was completely within the
discretion of the judge, based on two primary factors: the ability of the
obligor parent to pay and the needs of the child. In considering the
ability of the obligor parent to pay, the court weighed the obligor parent's
financial resources and personal needs. In considering the needs of the
child, the court weighed the custodial parent's financial resources, the
child's standard of living had the marriage not dissolved, the child's
physical and emotional condition, and the child's educational needs.

As it should be.....we are a nation of indiviuals NOT groups.

Because the standard for the award of child support was amorphous, child
support awards were subject to five major problems. First, many eligible
parents had no child support awards at all, although they were entitled to
such awards. In 1984, it was estimated that 30% of the 8.8 million
custodial parents had no child support award. In 1989, 42.3% of the ten
million mothers with children under age 21 whose fathers were living apart
from the family did not have a child support award.

The start of meaningless statistics. Lumping together 'those that were
entitled" . Secondly 18 is the legal age in most states......talk about
padding statistics

Second, among parents who were awarded child support, the empirical
evidence suggested award inadequacy. One study found that most noncustodial
parents paid more in monthly car payments than they did in child support
payments.Another study found that in 1985, the average support award was
only $208 per month, which is only 23% of the average expenditures for two
children in a middle income household.

One study? LOL and the source......don't bother And your "average
expenditures" data has been debunked countless times. $408 a month for two
child in 1985 was a hell of a lot of money.

Third, studies showed the awards were inconsistent. One empirical study
found that in one particular district court, support awards for one child
ranged from 6% to 41% of the obligor's income; for two children, awards
ranged from 5.6% to 40%. Another study reached similar conclusions. Thus,
leaving the determination of child support to the complete discretion of
judges based on "the needs of the child" led to inconsistent orders: two
noncustodial parents with the same number of children, the same income, and
the same circumstances, might very well obtain vastly different support
orders.

Once again we are a nation of individuals NOT groups.

Fourth, as a direct result of the inconsistency of the orders, obligors
developed a disrespect for the court's orders, causing parents to simply
forego their support obligations. In 1985, it was estimated that less than
half of the women owed child support received the full amount due, and a
full 26% received no support at all.In 1989, of the half-million women due
child support, only 51% received the full amount, 24% received partial
payment, and 25% received nothing. For 1991, before all the states had
their guidelines in place, the result was not much better.

And the NUMBER ONE reason for CS not being paid (from a survey of CP moomies
only) The NCP being financially UNABLE to pay.......then we can deduct the
ones that were dead, jailed, disabled, unaware that an order was even filed,
not the child's father, under 18 etc etc.

Fifth, because of the amorphous standard, neither parent had any means to
predict what a court would order. Because neither parent could
predict what a court would order, neither parent was willing to settle.
With little incentive to settle for a party who could afford an attorney,
negotiations would go on interminably. With parties unwilling to settle,
courts reported tremendous pressures coping with an estimated one million
divorces occurring annually, plus paternity cases and actions to modify
existing orders.

So the courts got lazy and decided to strip one segment of the population of
the rights.......how socialist of you.

These problems with child support awards were of direct concern to the
federal government, because the federal government provided the "safety
net" for those families whose support was inadequate or not forthcoming
through the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. Clearly, if
these problems could be alleviated, the cost to the federal government would
decrease. Thus, the federal government sought to curtail the traditional
expansive nature of judicial discretion in determining child support awards.

You get the "full if ****" award for that last paragraph. The fed (and
state for that matter) buearacrats sought to every increase the size and
power of their respective departments. And to top things off, the fed
guvmint has absolutely no constitution powers prescribed to them WRT
domestic relations.....but that didn't stop them.

AND turn off that damn HTML