Child Support Gold Diggers

"Bob Whiteside" wrote

"Gini" wrote

wrote
....................
Joint custody, should in my
opinion...leave each parent to support that child during the half of
the time that they have the child.....isn't that fair?
===
I haven't posted this for awhile, but I'm sure it will interest you.
The opinion below is from a dissenting
judge of the 5th District appellate court in Florida, when the court
considered the
question of financial responsibilities for subsequent children. A lower
court refused to reduce
the support of the NCP because of subsequent children. The majority
agreed
with the lower court, but
Judge Harris wrote this compelling dissenting opinion on the matter. It
is
long but very well worth the read.
I think it is the most poignant statement ever written on behalf of
subsequent children. Unfortunately, it
wasn't a majority opinion:

Thanks for posting this again. There are similar arguments being advanced
regarding the illegal alien debate. Why should a non-citizen illegal
alien
child be charged in-state tuition for state schools at a rate lower than a
legal citizen child who is a resident of another state? It's the same
logic
as the wise judge articulated - children are treated differently by state
mandated laws based on their birth and place of residence which are issues
over which they have no control.
==
Good point. I hadn't considered that. I guess the sweeping implications mean
we shouldn't expect
change anytime soon.
==
====

Perhaps, as these forgotten children come of age, they should sue the
government for forcing discriminatory practices. It's so odd that the
government mandates child support in this way as it does not practice
what it preaches.

For example, the minor children of a disabled parent on Social
Security are allocated half of whatever the parent's disability income
is. This is in addition to the disability income of the parent.
This amount is equally divided between all eligible children. If, per
chance, another child enters the picture (by whatever means), that
half is just divided into more shares and each child's share becomes
smaller. The government does NOT create an additional half for
children born of a different relationship, so why do they mandate that
divorced/never married parents do so?

Furthermore, while welfare benefits (another government program) may
claim it pays less for subsequent children, it does so only for
children residing in the same household. If a man had children with
three welfare recipients, each household would be subject to only a
household reduction for subsequent children. Welfare would NOT tell
the third mother that the benefits were reduced since there were
children from the same father already collecting.

These program recognize that children of subsequent households are
EQUAL to children of former households. So why is it that child
support forces children to be treated UNequally?

For what it is worth, I don't agree with creating an additional half
in Social Security and I don't agree with "welfare as an income." I
mention this to show how the government SEEMINGLY knows right from
wrong but enforces rules that force parents to do WRONG by their
children. Children of divorced/never married parents are, indeed, a
class entitled to the same protections as any other disadvantaged
class, IMO. The fact that the government DOES one thing while forcing
others to do something else would just strengthen a case.

It is entirely possible that it is only when the disenfranchised take
a strong stand that anything will change.

On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 21:55:46 GMT, "Gini" wrote:


wrote
....................
Joint custody, should in my
opinion...leave each parent to support that child during the half of
the time that they have the child.....isn't that fair?
===
I haven't posted this for awhile, but I'm sure it will interest you.
The opinion below is from a dissenting
judge of the 5th District appellate court in Florida, when the court
considered the
question of financial responsibilities for subsequent children. A lower
court refused to reduce
the support of the NCP because of subsequent children. The majority agreed
with the lower court, but
Judge Harris wrote this compelling dissenting opinion on the matter. It is
long but very well worth the read.
I think it is the most poignant statement ever written on behalf of
subsequent children. Unfortunately, it
wasn't a majority opinion:
(From
POHLMANN v. POHLMANN, 703 So.2d 1121 (Fla.App. 5 Dist. 1997)


"It is our obligation, under the constitution of this
state, to determine whether the state has the right under any
circumstance (even if recommended by a commission) to discriminate
between children born to the same parent. There is no doubt that
if parents are required to support their children by a second
marriage to the same extent that they must support their children
from an earlier marriage, the standard of living of all of the
children will be affected. But so too will the standard of living
of the first-born child in an intact marriage be affected by the
birth of the second child and this adjusted standard of living
will be further affected by the birth of the third child and this
adjusted standard of living will again be affected by the birth of
the fourth child and so on. The living standard of children will
always be affected when the parent's finite income is required to
be shared with additional siblings. But each child should be able
to expect that the law (the state) will not intervene in order to
treat him or her unfairly in the allocation of the parent's income
which is available for support. If the court so intervenes, the
children of the second marriage will see the court as the
neighborhood bully who steals their candy to give to their
half-siblings. The fact of a divorce should not be justification
for the state to prefer some of the siblings over others. It is
not appropriate for the state to punish the children of a second
marriage because their parent was involved in a previous divorce.

Although the state should not involve itself with the
divorced parent's decision regarding remarriage, our statute is
designed to discourage a parent from having a second family unless
he or she is willing to support the second family at a lesser
standard. But even though the statute is not an exercise of
legitimate state interest, since it is presumed that the parent is
aware of this provision it is not as unfair to enforce the
provisions of the statute against the parent in the event of a
second family as it is to enforce it against the children born of
the second marriage. At least the parent has assumed the risk of
state discrimination. But the children of the later marriage were
not aware of the statutory provision nor did they consent to be
born into state-mandated poverty. The United States Supreme
Court,[fn1] in considering whether a state could refuse to
educate the children of illegal immigrants, rejected the state's
effort:


Even if the State found it expedient to control the
conduct of adults by acting against their children,
legislation directing the onus of a parent's
misconduct against his children does not comport
with fundamental conceptions of justice.
"[V]isiting . . . condemnation on the head of an
infant is illogical and unjust. Moreover, imposing
disabilities on the . . . child is contrary to the
basic concept of our system that legal burdens
should bear some relationship to individual
responsibility or wrongdoing. Obviously, no child
is responsible for his birth and penalizing the
. . . child is an ineffectual - as well as
unjust - way of deterring the parent." (Citation
omitted).


Throughout this discussion, we should keep in mind that we
are not here dealing with state funds. The state is mandating a
disproportionate allocation of the parent's income. It is
demanding that parents, from
Page 1128
their income, support some of their children better than they
support the others. And the state is wrong. The state
does have a legitimate interest in seeing that a
noncustodial parent does not discriminate against the children of
the first marriage by supporting them at a lesser level than
subsequently born children in that parent's custody. And in
supplying this protection, the court should consider not only any
additional income earned by the parent since the divorce but also
any support contribution that might be made by the new spouse.
But the state should not attempt to meet this obligation, as it
has by this statute, by throwing the subsequent children to the
wolves. The state's current approach is Cinderellian - it makes
noncustodial parents appear as wicked stepparents to their own
children by requiring them to provide new ball gowns for their
first born while supplying hand-me-downs to their later children.


The dissent in Feltman asks the question: "Are the children
of a second marriage children of a lesser god'?" It also asks
whether such children are lesser under the United States
Constitution; are they less hungry or less naked without their
parent's support? It finally asks whether we should weep for the
children of a second marriage when they are born instead of when
they die? The dissent in Feltman's response to these questions is
that all children of the parent should be considered equal. The
dissent asserts, as do I, that the mere fact that discrimination
is in the guidelines or in the statute does not make it right, nor
does it make it constitutional. Nor does the fact that it is
designed by some committee make it so.


Even though it is a discomforting topic, perhaps we should
consider the fairness issue. Suppose it were the mother who was
required to pay support to the children of her first marriage.
And assume that upon remarriage she elects to have additional
children. By doing so, she has voluntarily become unemployed
rendering further child support problematic. Assume further that
she elects to become a stay-at-home mother to raise her new
children. The court would not, could not, and should not
intervene. And there is a good reason. The children of the first
marriage simply have no more veto power over the noncustodial
parent's future reproductive decisions than a child of an intact
marriage has over his parents' decision to have additional
children. And such children of the first marriage, at least in my
view, have no vested right to a higher standard of living based on
an allocation of a greater percentage of their parent's income
than do the children of a second marriage.


Because the state has no business discriminating between
children based solely on the fact of a divorce, there is no
legitimate state purpose in requiring a parent to allocate his or
her income more to one child than another. The state's attempt to
do so is state-mandated, court-enforced child abuse; it is not
only cruel discrimination, it is unconstitutional.


[fn1] Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 220, 102 S.Ct. 2382, 2396,
72 L.Ed.2d 786 (U.S.Tex. 1982), rehearing denied, 458 U.S. 1131,
103 S.Ct. 14, 73 L.Ed.2d 1401 (1982).





Beverly

"Beverly" wrote
Perhaps, as these forgotten children come of age, they should sue the
government for forcing discriminatory practices.
==
I've certainly thought of this. In our case, the CS was doubled from 600. to
1200. *after* we had the two young ones.
The real kicker is that the subsequent children may have no safety net in
which
to fall when they are in this situation. Virtually all need based government
programs calculate qualification
on gross income and do not allow a deduction for child support paid. Hence,
the children of the order,
even though they may have a significantly higher family income, may still
qualify for reduced lunches, daycare reductions
etc. that the later children do not qualify for. This was very scary to me
when we were paying 1200. a month
support to the ex. Even though our net was half what hers was, our kids
qualified for nothing that other families with our net income did. This is
one of the most hideous aspects of this
entire system. Cinderellian children are, without a doubt, one of the
greatest classes of children at risk, while the courts proudly
exclaim that they are "irrelevant."
==

"Beverly" wrote in message
...
Perhaps, as these forgotten children come of age, they should sue the
government for forcing discriminatory practices. It's so odd that the
government mandates child support in this way as it does not practice
what it preaches.

Why wait? Either parent (or guardian) of such a "forgotten" child could
bring such a suit against the Feds for practicing such unlawful (and
unwarranted) discrimination against said child(ren) in the child's name.

Surely, someone has done this.. Or did we just find a loop-hole in their
planned destruction of every family on the planet the size of Alaska?

Somebody better jump on this like a cat on a mouse - BEFORE the legislative
clowns find a way to create some sort of legal hatch cover and can stop
their plans from being scuttled!

Yes, you are right, family coverage, would cover all of the
children....that is if we could afford the family coverage. My husband
pay 400 dollars a month in child support, still supports the kid half
of the time, pays for all of his non covered medical expenses, pays for
his private school tuition (my kids go to public school), and is
required by the order to deposit 50.00 a month into a savings account
for the child, and has to reimburse the mother for 100% of the cost of
her health insurance for the child....add it all up....this child is
costing us about 1200.00 per month total. The health insurance that he
pays 100% of is on the biological mother's insurance....and my children
can not be covered under that policy....we could....take out our own
policy for our family through my husbands employer, but that would cost
us another 300.00 per month....and we pay so much to support the one,
that the others, have to do without the insurance....or the mortgage
couldn't be paid....therefore, they would have to do with out a home.

"Dusty" wrote
"Beverly" wrote

Perhaps, as these forgotten children come of age, they should sue the
government for forcing discriminatory practices. It's so odd that the
government mandates child support in this way as it does not practice
what it preaches.

Why wait? Either parent (or guardian) of such a "forgotten" child could
bring such a suit against the Feds for practicing such unlawful (and
unwarranted) discrimination against said child(ren) in the child's name.

Surely, someone has done this.. Or did we just find a loop-hole in their
planned destruction of every family on the planet the size of Alaska?

Somebody better jump on this like a cat on a mouse - BEFORE the
legislative clowns find a way to create some sort of legal hatch cover and
can stop their plans from being scuttled!
==
Dusty, states have been doing this for at least 10 years. Some courts have
declared
that states have a greater interest in children of divorce because they are
inherently at risk.
Children in intact homes are not at risk, so they say. I am not aware of any
of these statutes
having a constitutional challenge. I guess it all boils down to NCPs who
lack resources
to bring a case through the appellate courts. Also, most child support
guidelines do not
apply to combined incomes of over 10k per month so the dads with plenty of
money
aren't necessarily paying as great a share of their income for child
support. Geez, I still can't
figure out how all these illegals can band together by the millions at the
drop of a hat to protest
immigration legislation but NCPs can't get anything together. We need to
find out who's (loosely)
organizing those rallys. (As an aside, we faced the same situation of
inequality when trying to get our kids into a
local private school. Guess what? The poorer folks around here have their
kids in the same school on full
need based scholorships but we have to come up with 16k per semester, in
advance to enroll our kids, so
they can't go.)
==

Just a stupid legal question here....how would someone who has no money
left over after supporting a "first born child" go about such a
discrimination lawsuit? Lawsuits cost money....money that these
familys do not have left over.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Just a stupid legal question here....how would someone who has no money
left over after supporting a "first born child" go about such a
discrimination lawsuit? Lawsuits cost money....money that these
familys do not have left over.

Join together with other broke-dead NCP's and file a Class Action suit.

Hey, I'm just as broke as the next NCP, but if I had even ten cents to my
name, I'd be looking to file in a heart beat!

wrote in message
oups.com...
Just a stupid legal question here....how would someone who has no money
left over after supporting a "first born child" go about such a
discrimination lawsuit? Lawsuits cost money....money that these
familys do not have left over.

Good point, but that's what organized groups are for!

Kind of ironic, we have a Government that is supposed to protect it's
citizens, yet we need an organization to protect us from that same
Government. LOL

Where did they miss the point of Equal Rights for all, not special rights
for some?

wrote:
Yes, you are right, family coverage, would cover all of the
children....that is if we could afford the family coverage. My husband
pay 400 dollars a month in child support, still supports the kid half
of the time, pays for all of his non covered medical expenses, pays for
his private school tuition (my kids go to public school), and is
required by the order to deposit 50.00 a month into a savings account
for the child, and has to reimburse the mother for 100% of the cost of
her health insurance for the child....add it all up....this child is
costing us about 1200.00 per month total. The health insurance that he
pays 100% of is on the biological mother's insurance....and my children
can not be covered under that policy....we could....take out our own
policy for our family through my husbands employer, but that would cost
us another 300.00 per month....and we pay so much to support the one,
that the others, have to do without the insurance....or the mortgage
couldn't be paid....therefore, they would have to do with out a home.

I guess I should jump on in on this one...

After being in a relationship for about 5 years me and my ex had a
child together. She ended up leaving me for a married man. She left me
with the child for about 1 1/2 month without ever making contact. I
filled for custody during this time. After about 2 months of trying to
serve her papers (i had no idea where she was living, so was hard to
serve papers) she got them and filed for full custody herself stating I
was abusive and she had to leave the relationship. We went to court and
we got 50/50 joint custody co-domiciliary. It is now 2 years later
after this was awarded. She is now remarried, pregnant with another
child and is a stay at home parent. She has been claiming food stamps
and medicaid using my son's name to up her money on food stamps. I am
now being taken to court to discuss how much I should pay her in Child
Support. When she was working (during the custody case) it was said I
would pay 60% to her 40%. So if daycare cost was 100.00 a week I would
have to take care of the 60 dollars. This would be on a per-needed
basis, not a monthly deal. Now that she isn't working I feel I am going
to get screwed. Her husband makes 50,000 more a year then I do which is
why she chooses not to work. She can qualify for food stamps and
medicaid because the state does not look at the spouce's income so they
see it as a single parent of zero income. Another thing that ****es me
off is this year her husband claimed my son on his tax return. So the
fact that he can get a benifit from my son and I am still being held
under the knife to pay money makes me so hot. But he can't use my son
to get a greater tax return but the state doesn't care that he makes
50k more then I do.

I believe that she filed on her food stamp app that she wanted the
state to enforce child support but she is not seeking it actively. But
she isn't going to complain he they award her anything, even as small
as 50 bucks a week. She would just love it..

Now, I am in a new relationship and have a new born (7 months old)
which, like in your case, I won't be able to provide as well for him. I
have a household of 3. I have 2 son's and a step daughter. I provide
for all of my family, rather its a step child or not. I think the state
needs to look at the family income and children we (us fathers) support
and take that into consideration.

But I don't agree with fathers should pay more when a women chooses not
to work. What would happen to men if they were unable to support their
children? What if the tables were turned?