If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
MA - Outrageous Injustice
http://mensnewsdaily.com/glennsacks/...-by-supporter/
Globe Front Page Story Covers Fathers & Families' Lawsuit, Outrageous Injustice Faced by Supporter By Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families Apr 13, 2009 "'For one divorced father of four...the crumbling economy has had consequences beyond the emotional and financial. "His $1,400 weekly support payments, plus additional expenses like health insurance and tuition, had been based on a court judgment in 2007. "The man works for a realty business, and since the real estate market has frozen, his income has plummeted. Earlier this year he fell $23,000 behind in what he owed, including attorney's fees to his ex-wife's lawyer. With his modification petition still pending, he was handcuffed in court and put in jail for 30 days... "'Of the 45 guys I was in jail with," he said, "12 to 14 were probate cases. So I know I'm not alone.'" Joseph P. Kahn's front page story Amid layoffs, child support pacts fraying: Stressed-out parents ask family court for help, relief (Boston Globe, 4/13/09) details the problems faced by child support obligors in the face a bad economy. It is not uncommon for decent, loving fathers like the Fathers & Families supporter quoted above to be punished or even thrown in jail simply because they can no longer earn enough money to pay the child support the family law system demands. We suggest that you thoughtfully and responsibly: 1) Write a Letter to the Editor of the Boston Globe by clicking or using their online form here. The shorter the letter, the better chance it has of being published. 2) Comment on the story on the Globe website by clicking here. 3) Commend reporter Joseph P. Kahn for bringing attention to this important issue--his email is Kahn also writes: The chief justice of the Probate and Family Court, Paula Carey, concurs, noting that contempt citations have risen sharply in recent months as more litigants have fallen behind on their obligations, whether employed or not. Carey is particularly concerned about those who represent themselves in court, either because they can't afford an attorney or because they believe they can be their own best advocate. "Many don't understand that if they lose their jobs, they need to come back right away and get [the divorce agreement] modified," said Carey. Otherwise, she said, they're already in trouble because child-support modifications are not retroactive to the date a job was lost or a similar change in financial circumstances. Carey chaired a 12-member task force that reviewed the state guidelines over a two-year period beginning in October 2006. Under federal law, states must update their guidelines, which apply to married and nonmarried parents alike, every four years. Spelled out in the new guidelines are a recognition that healthcare coverage is vitally important to children's welfare and a commitment to streamlining the process by which adjustments are made. The guidelines establish minimum payments, set at $80 a month, but do not cap them at the high end. The revamped guidelines already face a stiff legal challenge, however, another reflection of tough economic times. This afternoon, Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Linda Giles is scheduled to hear a lawsuit filed by the Boston-based nonprofit Fathers and Families. The group contends that the guidelines unfairly burden noncustodial parents financially and were unconstitutionally implemented by the courts, not the state Legislature. According to the lawsuit, the new guidelines sometimes double or even triple the support levels previously mandated, causing further stress on splintered families. "We do the best we can to make sure that kids at least get the basics," said Carey, defending the current system. "That's not always easy to do, especially at lower income levels." But, she said, "All of us understand that when someone loses a job, there's a tendency to crawl into a hole - and they shouldn't. We want to help them." ------------------------ http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas...pacts_fraying/ Amid layoffs, child support pacts fraying Stressed-out parents ask family court for help, relief Essex County Probate Judge Amy Blake: ''From a day-to-day perspective, we've definitely seen an uptick'' in the number of divorced spouses seeking changes to child-support arrangements. (Travis Dove for The Boston Globe) By Joseph P. Kahn Globe Staff / April 13, 2009 A Massachusetts family court system that is strained during the best of times and taxed with implementing new child-support guidelines faces another challenge: divorced parents seeking relief from - or enforcement of - support arrangements as their financial and employment situations deteriorate. Although the probate court system, which has jurisdiction over child-support cases, does not keep statistics on modification petitions, judges and lawyers within the system say such filings have increased noticeably in recent months as the ranks of the unemployed and underemployed have swollen. Layoffs, cutbacks, and battered investment portfolios have affected custodial and noncustodial parents on all ends of the socioeconomic spectrum, along with tens of thousands of Massachusetts children. Nationally, the picture is just as grim, according to a survey released last month by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. The 1,600-member group reports a 39 percent increase in the number of divorced spouses seeking changes to child-support arrangements in a tight job market and deepening recession. "From a day-to-day perspective, we've definite ly seen an uptick," said Essex County Probate Judge Amy Blake, who practiced domestic relations law for 15 years before her appointment to the bench last July. Although no single factor explains the increase, Blake added, the economic downturn clearly plays a role. The chief justice of the Probate and Family Court, Paula Carey, concurs, noting that contempt citations have risen sharply in recent months as more litigants have fallen behind on their obligations, whether employed or not. Carey is particularly concerned about those who represent themselves in court, either because they can't afford an attorney or because they believe they can be their own best advocate. "Many don't understand that if they lose their jobs, they need to come back right away and get [the divorce agreement] modified," said Carey. Otherwise, she said, they're already in trouble because child-support modifications are not retroactive to the date a job was lost or a similar change in financial circumstances. Carey chaired a 12-member task force that reviewed the state guidelines over a two-year period beginning in October 2006. Under federal law, states must update their guidelines, which apply to married and nonmarried parents alike, every four years. Spelled out in the new guidelines are a recognition that healthcare coverage is vitally important to children's welfare and a commitment to streamlining the process by which adjustments are made. The guidelines establish minimum payments, set at $80 a month, but do not cap them at the high end. The revamped guidelines already face a stiff legal challenge, however, another reflection of tough economic times. This afternoon, Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Linda Giles is scheduled to hear a lawsuit filed by the Boston-based nonprofit Fathers and Families. The group contends that the guidelines unfairly burden noncustodial parents financially and were unconstitutionally implemented by the courts, not the state Legislature. According to the lawsuit, the new guidelines sometimes double or even triple the support levels previously mandated, causing further stress on splintered families. "We do the best we can to make sure that kids at least get the basics," said Carey, defending the current system. "That's not always easy to do, especially at lower income levels." But, she said, "All of us understand that when someone loses a job, there's a tendency to crawl into a hole - and they shouldn't. We want to help them." Gayle Stone-Turesky, an attorney who worked on the task force, says the group was particularly concerned with protecting lower-income families. "Even before the economy went south," said Stone-Turesky, "these people were clearly struggling." According to many divorce lawyers, however, most cases going to court are being brought by parents seeking lower payments because they've lost their jobs or face foreclosure on their homes. Those getting regular support "are grateful to be getting it," said attorney Marylinne Rice. "We're seeing more cases where both sides can't afford" to keep up financially. In the past, she adds, when someone lost his job, the argument to the court would be, "He's fully employable." "That's gone by the boards," she said, although courts usually require proof that a litigant has applied for work on a regular basis. Divorce attorney Fern Frolin estimates that calls to her office about contempt and modification cases are running 25 percent above normal. She likens today's economic downturn to the 1980s housing recession, when divorcing couples were stuck with houses they could not sell. "That was tough, but this year it's not just housing, it's everything," said Frolin. One example, she says, is the small-business owner whose backlog of accounts receivable - money owed to the company but uncollected - makes his business appear healthy on paper, when in fact there's little available cash to divide between parties. "You can't pay child support with receivables," she noted. "I've never seen that before." For middle- and upper-income families, another financial pressure point is investment vehicles like retirement accounts and college-tuition funds, frequently regarded as communal property in divorce agreements. These funds, normally expected to grow in value, are now being tapped for cash or decimated by a sinking stock market, say observers like Boston attorney Donald Tye. As a result, he says, many judges are adjusting court-ordered private-school and college tuition payments to fall more in line with state-college fees than with those charged by elite prep schools or Ivy League colleges. Kelley Bothe, a Wellesley psychotherapist who runs support groups for divorced parents, says the emotional havoc being wreaked on families is palpable. One woman in her group is a stay-at-home mother suddenly forced into the job market to help support her children. Two fathers are business owners who are simultaneously coping with a bad business cycle and devastating personal loss. Another is facing foreclosure on his home. Where children are involved, the anxieties grow even more pronounced. "In any divorce, people worry about finances," said Bothe, "yet there's often a shared goal to provide for kids in the way they're used to. But if the income is suddenly compromised, parents wonder, How are we going to do this and give our kids the lives they've had?" Beverly attorney Edmund Greene has seen both sides of the child-support issue, legal and personal. Greene, divorced four years ago with a 5-year old daughter, is petitioning the court to reduce his $360 weekly support payments by half. His private practice has dried up, says Greene, and fully a third of his income comes from unemployment while he continues to look for full-time work. Meanwhile, Greene is helping other probate court litigants on a pro-bono basis - including some who are fighting against proposed court-ordered cuts in the child-support levels they receive. "These people can't navigate the system by themselves," he says. For one divorced father of four who requested anonymity because his case hasn't been settled, the crumbling economy has had consequences beyond the emotional and financial. His $1,400 weekly support payments, plus additional expenses like health insurance and tuition, had been based on a court judgment in 2007. The man works for a realty business, and since the real estate market has frozen, his income has plummeted. Earlier this year he fell $23,000 behind in what he owed, including attorney's fees to his ex-wife's lawyer. With his modification petition still pending, he was handcuffed in court and put in jail for 30 days. A pretrial hearing on his case is scheduled for May. "Of the 45 guys I was in jail with," he said, "12 to 14 were probate cases. So I know I'm not alone." Joseph P. Kahn can be reached at |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
MA - Outrageous Injustice
The simple facts are this.. MA is one of the most extreme pro-radfem
states, er, Commonwealth's, in the country. They flat out cannot stand single fathers, married fathers nor even non-married fathers. If it's a father of any kind, cept for the cathloc kind that loves to play with alter boys.. then they go by the watch-words of: "Distrust and Vilify". MA "family courts will so rarely allow a downward modification that people never know when they happen. And often the amount involved is such a pitance that it doesn't bear mentioning in the media (or anywhere else for that matter). The part where the reporter from the globe claims that even married and non-married parents are subject to the law is a friggin' joke. When was the last time anyone ever heard of a married parent being dragged into court to explain why they haven't spent 3/4 of their pay on little Johny of Susie?? When?? What millenium was it in?? Yupper, leave it to MA to "help" NCP's.. right into the slammer. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
MA - Outrageous Injustice
"Dusty" wrote in message ... http://mensnewsdaily.com/glennsacks/...-by-supporter/ Globe Front Page Story Covers Fathers & Families' Lawsuit, Outrageous Injustice Faced by Supporter By Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families Apr 13, 2009 "'For one divorced father of four...the crumbling economy has had consequences beyond the emotional and financial. "His $1,400 weekly support payments, plus additional expenses like health insurance and tuition, had been based on a court judgment in 2007. "The man works for a realty business, and since the real estate market has frozen, his income has plummeted. Earlier this year he fell $23,000 behind in what he owed, including attorney's fees to his ex-wife's lawyer. With his modification petition still pending, he was handcuffed in court and put in jail for 30 days... "'Of the 45 guys I was in jail with," he said, "12 to 14 were probate cases. So I know I'm not alone.'" Joseph P. Kahn's front page story Amid layoffs, child support pacts fraying: Stressed-out parents ask family court for help, relief (Boston Globe, 4/13/09) details the problems faced by child support obligors in the face a bad economy. It is not uncommon for decent, loving fathers like the Fathers & Families supporter quoted above to be punished or even thrown in jail simply because they can no longer earn enough money to pay the child support the family law system demands. We suggest that you thoughtfully and responsibly: 1) Write a Letter to the Editor of the Boston Globe by clicking or using their online form here. The shorter the letter, the better chance it has of being published. 2) Comment on the story on the Globe website by clicking here. 3) Commend reporter Joseph P. Kahn for bringing attention to this important issue--his email is Kahn also writes: The chief justice of the Probate and Family Court, Paula Carey, concurs, noting that contempt citations have risen sharply in recent months as more litigants have fallen behind on their obligations, whether employed or not. Carey is particularly concerned about those who represent themselves in court, either because they can't afford an attorney or because they believe they can be their own best advocate. "Many don't understand that if they lose their jobs, they need to come back right away and get [the divorce agreement] modified," said Carey. Otherwise, she said, they're already in trouble because child-support modifications are not retroactive to the date a job was lost or a similar change in financial circumstances. Carey chaired a 12-member task force that reviewed the state guidelines over a two-year period beginning in October 2006. Under federal law, states must update their guidelines, which apply to married and nonmarried parents alike, every four years. Spelled out in the new guidelines are a recognition that healthcare coverage is vitally important to children's welfare and a commitment to streamlining the process by which adjustments are made. The guidelines establish minimum payments, set at $80 a month, but do not cap them at the high end. The revamped guidelines already face a stiff legal challenge, however, another reflection of tough economic times. This afternoon, Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Linda Giles is scheduled to hear a lawsuit filed by the Boston-based nonprofit Fathers and Families. The group contends that the guidelines unfairly burden noncustodial parents financially and were unconstitutionally implemented by the courts, not the state Legislature. According to the lawsuit, the new guidelines sometimes double or even triple the support levels previously mandated, causing further stress on splintered families. "We do the best we can to make sure that kids at least get the basics," said Carey, defending the current system. "That's not always easy to do, especially at lower income levels." But, she said, "All of us understand that when someone loses a job, there's a tendency to crawl into a hole - and they shouldn't. We want to help them." ------------------------ http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas...pacts_fraying/ Amid layoffs, child support pacts fraying Stressed-out parents ask family court for help, relief Essex County Probate Judge Amy Blake: ''From a day-to-day perspective, we've definitely seen an uptick'' in the number of divorced spouses seeking changes to child-support arrangements. (Travis Dove for The Boston Globe) By Joseph P. Kahn Globe Staff / April 13, 2009 A Massachusetts family court system that is strained during the best of times and taxed with implementing new child-support guidelines faces another challenge: divorced parents seeking relief from - or enforcement of - support arrangements as their financial and employment situations deteriorate. Although the probate court system, which has jurisdiction over child-support cases, does not keep statistics on modification petitions, judges and lawyers within the system say such filings have increased noticeably in recent months as the ranks of the unemployed and underemployed have swollen. Layoffs, cutbacks, and battered investment portfolios have affected custodial and noncustodial parents on all ends of the socioeconomic spectrum, along with tens of thousands of Massachusetts children. Nationally, the picture is just as grim, according to a survey released last month by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. The 1,600-member group reports a 39 percent increase in the number of divorced spouses seeking changes to child-support arrangements in a tight job market and deepening recession. "From a day-to-day perspective, we've definite ly seen an uptick," said Essex County Probate Judge Amy Blake, who practiced domestic relations law for 15 years before her appointment to the bench last July. Although no single factor explains the increase, Blake added, the economic downturn clearly plays a role. The chief justice of the Probate and Family Court, Paula Carey, concurs, noting that contempt citations have risen sharply in recent months as more litigants have fallen behind on their obligations, whether employed or not. Carey is particularly concerned about those who represent themselves in court, either because they can't afford an attorney or because they believe they can be their own best advocate. "Many don't understand that if they lose their jobs, they need to come back right away and get [the divorce agreement] modified," said Carey. Otherwise, she said, they're already in trouble because child-support modifications are not retroactive to the date a job was lost or a similar change in financial circumstances. Carey chaired a 12-member task force that reviewed the state guidelines over a two-year period beginning in October 2006. Under federal law, states must update their guidelines, which apply to married and nonmarried parents alike, every four years. Spelled out in the new guidelines are a recognition that healthcare coverage is vitally important to children's welfare and a commitment to streamlining the process by which adjustments are made. The guidelines establish minimum payments, set at $80 a month, but do not cap them at the high end. The revamped guidelines already face a stiff legal challenge, however, another reflection of tough economic times. This afternoon, Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Linda Giles is scheduled to hear a lawsuit filed by the Boston-based nonprofit Fathers and Families. The group contends that the guidelines unfairly burden noncustodial parents financially and were unconstitutionally implemented by the courts, not the state Legislature. According to the lawsuit, the new guidelines sometimes double or even triple the support levels previously mandated, causing further stress on splintered families. "We do the best we can to make sure that kids at least get the basics," said Carey, defending the current system. "That's not always easy to do, especially at lower income levels." But, she said, "All of us understand that when someone loses a job, there's a tendency to crawl into a hole - and they shouldn't. We want to help them." Gayle Stone-Turesky, an attorney who worked on the task force, says the group was particularly concerned with protecting lower-income families. "Even before the economy went south," said Stone-Turesky, "these people were clearly struggling." According to many divorce lawyers, however, most cases going to court are being brought by parents seeking lower payments because they've lost their jobs or face foreclosure on their homes. Those getting regular support "are grateful to be getting it," said attorney Marylinne Rice. "We're seeing more cases where both sides can't afford" to keep up financially. In the past, she adds, when someone lost his job, the argument to the court would be, "He's fully employable." "That's gone by the boards," she said, although courts usually require proof that a litigant has applied for work on a regular basis. Divorce attorney Fern Frolin estimates that calls to her office about contempt and modification cases are running 25 percent above normal. She likens today's economic downturn to the 1980s housing recession, when divorcing couples were stuck with houses they could not sell. "That was tough, but this year it's not just housing, it's everything," said Frolin. One example, she says, is the small-business owner whose backlog of accounts receivable - money owed to the company but uncollected - makes his business appear healthy on paper, when in fact there's little available cash to divide between parties. "You can't pay child support with receivables," she noted. "I've never seen that before." For middle- and upper-income families, another financial pressure point is investment vehicles like retirement accounts and college-tuition funds, frequently regarded as communal property in divorce agreements. These funds, normally expected to grow in value, are now being tapped for cash or decimated by a sinking stock market, say observers like Boston attorney Donald Tye. As a result, he says, many judges are adjusting court-ordered private-school and college tuition payments to fall more in line with state-college fees than with those charged by elite prep schools or Ivy League colleges. Kelley Bothe, a Wellesley psychotherapist who runs support groups for divorced parents, says the emotional havoc being wreaked on families is palpable. One woman in her group is a stay-at-home mother suddenly forced into the job market to help support her children. Two fathers are business owners who are simultaneously coping with a bad business cycle and devastating personal loss. Another is facing foreclosure on his home. Where children are involved, the anxieties grow even more pronounced. "In any divorce, people worry about finances," said Bothe, "yet there's often a shared goal to provide for kids in the way they're used to. But if the income is suddenly compromised, parents wonder, How are we going to do this and give our kids the lives they've had?" Beverly attorney Edmund Greene has seen both sides of the child-support issue, legal and personal. Greene, divorced four years ago with a 5-year old daughter, is petitioning the court to reduce his $360 weekly support payments by half. His private practice has dried up, says Greene, and fully a third of his income comes from unemployment while he continues to look for full-time work. Meanwhile, Greene is helping other probate court litigants on a pro-bono basis - including some who are fighting against proposed court-ordered cuts in the child-support levels they receive. "These people can't navigate the system by themselves," he says. For one divorced father of four who requested anonymity because his case hasn't been settled, the crumbling economy has had consequences beyond the emotional and financial. His $1,400 weekly support payments, plus additional expenses like health insurance and tuition, had been based on a court judgment in 2007. The man works for a realty business, and since the real estate market has frozen, his income has plummeted. Earlier this year he fell $23,000 behind in what he owed, including attorney's fees to his ex-wife's lawyer. With his modification petition still pending, he was handcuffed in court and put in jail for 30 days. A pretrial hearing on his case is scheduled for May. "Of the 45 guys I was in jail with," he said, "12 to 14 were probate cases. So I know I'm not alone." Joseph P. Kahn can be reached at A sick and sad commentary on the rapidly deteriorating moral condition of this nation. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
MA - Outrageous Injustice
When the government starts to imprison it's citizens over money issues, it's
time for a new government! "Dusty" wrote in message ... http://mensnewsdaily.com/glennsacks/...-by-supporter/ Globe Front Page Story Covers Fathers & Families' Lawsuit, Outrageous Injustice Faced by Supporter By Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families Apr 13, 2009 "'For one divorced father of four...the crumbling economy has had consequences beyond the emotional and financial. "His $1,400 weekly support payments, plus additional expenses like health insurance and tuition, had been based on a court judgment in 2007. "The man works for a realty business, and since the real estate market has frozen, his income has plummeted. Earlier this year he fell $23,000 behind in what he owed, including attorney's fees to his ex-wife's lawyer. With his modification petition still pending, he was handcuffed in court and put in jail for 30 days... "'Of the 45 guys I was in jail with," he said, "12 to 14 were probate cases. So I know I'm not alone.'" Joseph P. Kahn's front page story Amid layoffs, child support pacts fraying: Stressed-out parents ask family court for help, relief (Boston Globe, 4/13/09) details the problems faced by child support obligors in the face a bad economy. It is not uncommon for decent, loving fathers like the Fathers & Families supporter quoted above to be punished or even thrown in jail simply because they can no longer earn enough money to pay the child support the family law system demands. We suggest that you thoughtfully and responsibly: 1) Write a Letter to the Editor of the Boston Globe by clicking or using their online form here. The shorter the letter, the better chance it has of being published. 2) Comment on the story on the Globe website by clicking here. 3) Commend reporter Joseph P. Kahn for bringing attention to this important issue--his email is Kahn also writes: The chief justice of the Probate and Family Court, Paula Carey, concurs, noting that contempt citations have risen sharply in recent months as more litigants have fallen behind on their obligations, whether employed or not. Carey is particularly concerned about those who represent themselves in court, either because they can't afford an attorney or because they believe they can be their own best advocate. "Many don't understand that if they lose their jobs, they need to come back right away and get [the divorce agreement] modified," said Carey. Otherwise, she said, they're already in trouble because child-support modifications are not retroactive to the date a job was lost or a similar change in financial circumstances. Carey chaired a 12-member task force that reviewed the state guidelines over a two-year period beginning in October 2006. Under federal law, states must update their guidelines, which apply to married and nonmarried parents alike, every four years. Spelled out in the new guidelines are a recognition that healthcare coverage is vitally important to children's welfare and a commitment to streamlining the process by which adjustments are made. The guidelines establish minimum payments, set at $80 a month, but do not cap them at the high end. The revamped guidelines already face a stiff legal challenge, however, another reflection of tough economic times. This afternoon, Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Linda Giles is scheduled to hear a lawsuit filed by the Boston-based nonprofit Fathers and Families. The group contends that the guidelines unfairly burden noncustodial parents financially and were unconstitutionally implemented by the courts, not the state Legislature. According to the lawsuit, the new guidelines sometimes double or even triple the support levels previously mandated, causing further stress on splintered families. "We do the best we can to make sure that kids at least get the basics," said Carey, defending the current system. "That's not always easy to do, especially at lower income levels." But, she said, "All of us understand that when someone loses a job, there's a tendency to crawl into a hole - and they shouldn't. We want to help them." ------------------------ http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas...pacts_fraying/ Amid layoffs, child support pacts fraying Stressed-out parents ask family court for help, relief Essex County Probate Judge Amy Blake: ''From a day-to-day perspective, we've definitely seen an uptick'' in the number of divorced spouses seeking changes to child-support arrangements. (Travis Dove for The Boston Globe) By Joseph P. Kahn Globe Staff / April 13, 2009 A Massachusetts family court system that is strained during the best of times and taxed with implementing new child-support guidelines faces another challenge: divorced parents seeking relief from - or enforcement of - support arrangements as their financial and employment situations deteriorate. Although the probate court system, which has jurisdiction over child-support cases, does not keep statistics on modification petitions, judges and lawyers within the system say such filings have increased noticeably in recent months as the ranks of the unemployed and underemployed have swollen. Layoffs, cutbacks, and battered investment portfolios have affected custodial and noncustodial parents on all ends of the socioeconomic spectrum, along with tens of thousands of Massachusetts children. Nationally, the picture is just as grim, according to a survey released last month by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. The 1,600-member group reports a 39 percent increase in the number of divorced spouses seeking changes to child-support arrangements in a tight job market and deepening recession. "From a day-to-day perspective, we've definite ly seen an uptick," said Essex County Probate Judge Amy Blake, who practiced domestic relations law for 15 years before her appointment to the bench last July. Although no single factor explains the increase, Blake added, the economic downturn clearly plays a role. The chief justice of the Probate and Family Court, Paula Carey, concurs, noting that contempt citations have risen sharply in recent months as more litigants have fallen behind on their obligations, whether employed or not. Carey is particularly concerned about those who represent themselves in court, either because they can't afford an attorney or because they believe they can be their own best advocate. "Many don't understand that if they lose their jobs, they need to come back right away and get [the divorce agreement] modified," said Carey. Otherwise, she said, they're already in trouble because child-support modifications are not retroactive to the date a job was lost or a similar change in financial circumstances. Carey chaired a 12-member task force that reviewed the state guidelines over a two-year period beginning in October 2006. Under federal law, states must update their guidelines, which apply to married and nonmarried parents alike, every four years. Spelled out in the new guidelines are a recognition that healthcare coverage is vitally important to children's welfare and a commitment to streamlining the process by which adjustments are made. The guidelines establish minimum payments, set at $80 a month, but do not cap them at the high end. The revamped guidelines already face a stiff legal challenge, however, another reflection of tough economic times. This afternoon, Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Linda Giles is scheduled to hear a lawsuit filed by the Boston-based nonprofit Fathers and Families. The group contends that the guidelines unfairly burden noncustodial parents financially and were unconstitutionally implemented by the courts, not the state Legislature. According to the lawsuit, the new guidelines sometimes double or even triple the support levels previously mandated, causing further stress on splintered families. "We do the best we can to make sure that kids at least get the basics," said Carey, defending the current system. "That's not always easy to do, especially at lower income levels." But, she said, "All of us understand that when someone loses a job, there's a tendency to crawl into a hole - and they shouldn't. We want to help them." Gayle Stone-Turesky, an attorney who worked on the task force, says the group was particularly concerned with protecting lower-income families. "Even before the economy went south," said Stone-Turesky, "these people were clearly struggling." According to many divorce lawyers, however, most cases going to court are being brought by parents seeking lower payments because they've lost their jobs or face foreclosure on their homes. Those getting regular support "are grateful to be getting it," said attorney Marylinne Rice. "We're seeing more cases where both sides can't afford" to keep up financially. In the past, she adds, when someone lost his job, the argument to the court would be, "He's fully employable." "That's gone by the boards," she said, although courts usually require proof that a litigant has applied for work on a regular basis. Divorce attorney Fern Frolin estimates that calls to her office about contempt and modification cases are running 25 percent above normal. She likens today's economic downturn to the 1980s housing recession, when divorcing couples were stuck with houses they could not sell. "That was tough, but this year it's not just housing, it's everything," said Frolin. One example, she says, is the small-business owner whose backlog of accounts receivable - money owed to the company but uncollected - makes his business appear healthy on paper, when in fact there's little available cash to divide between parties. "You can't pay child support with receivables," she noted. "I've never seen that before." For middle- and upper-income families, another financial pressure point is investment vehicles like retirement accounts and college-tuition funds, frequently regarded as communal property in divorce agreements. These funds, normally expected to grow in value, are now being tapped for cash or decimated by a sinking stock market, say observers like Boston attorney Donald Tye. As a result, he says, many judges are adjusting court-ordered private-school and college tuition payments to fall more in line with state-college fees than with those charged by elite prep schools or Ivy League colleges. Kelley Bothe, a Wellesley psychotherapist who runs support groups for divorced parents, says the emotional havoc being wreaked on families is palpable. One woman in her group is a stay-at-home mother suddenly forced into the job market to help support her children. Two fathers are business owners who are simultaneously coping with a bad business cycle and devastating personal loss. Another is facing foreclosure on his home. Where children are involved, the anxieties grow even more pronounced. "In any divorce, people worry about finances," said Bothe, "yet there's often a shared goal to provide for kids in the way they're used to. But if the income is suddenly compromised, parents wonder, How are we going to do this and give our kids the lives they've had?" Beverly attorney Edmund Greene has seen both sides of the child-support issue, legal and personal. Greene, divorced four years ago with a 5-year old daughter, is petitioning the court to reduce his $360 weekly support payments by half. His private practice has dried up, says Greene, and fully a third of his income comes from unemployment while he continues to look for full-time work. Meanwhile, Greene is helping other probate court litigants on a pro-bono basis - including some who are fighting against proposed court-ordered cuts in the child-support levels they receive. "These people can't navigate the system by themselves," he says. For one divorced father of four who requested anonymity because his case hasn't been settled, the crumbling economy has had consequences beyond the emotional and financial. His $1,400 weekly support payments, plus additional expenses like health insurance and tuition, had been based on a court judgment in 2007. The man works for a realty business, and since the real estate market has frozen, his income has plummeted. Earlier this year he fell $23,000 behind in what he owed, including attorney's fees to his ex-wife's lawyer. With his modification petition still pending, he was handcuffed in court and put in jail for 30 days. A pretrial hearing on his case is scheduled for May. "Of the 45 guys I was in jail with," he said, "12 to 14 were probate cases. So I know I'm not alone." Joseph P. Kahn can be reached at |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
MA - Outrageous Injustice
DB wrote:
When the government starts to imprison it's citizens over money issues, it's time for a new government! Incarceration should be reserved largely for the purposes of segregating those that have demonstrated a tendency to maliciously and violently harm society. (Actually, those that have demonstrated a tendency to harm society should be executed, but that is a topic for another day/thread.) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
MA - Outrageous Injustice
"Peter Franks" wrote in message ... DB wrote: When the government starts to imprison it's citizens over money issues, it's time for a new government! Incarceration should be reserved largely for the purposes of segregating those that have demonstrated a tendency to maliciously and violently harm society. Quite right, this is an abuse of authority! No judge in this land should be allowed to impute a set income when a Father has lost his job thru no fault of his own. America should be embarrassed about preaching freedom and liberty for all to other nations when it imprisons it's own citizens for minor money matters. Hell, they sure don't imprison the scumbags on Wall Street when they stole all the money that we will have to pay back. Not only did they get rich, they also got rewarded with more money from the same government that puts a man in jail for not having the ability to support his kids! |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
MA - Outrageous Injustice
"DB" wrote in message ... "Peter Franks" wrote in message ... DB wrote: When the government starts to imprison it's citizens over money issues, it's time for a new government! Incarceration should be reserved largely for the purposes of segregating those that have demonstrated a tendency to maliciously and violently harm society. Quite right, this is an abuse of authority! No judge in this land should be allowed to impute a set income when a Father has lost his job thru no fault of his own. That's how they justify their actions, by pretending that a lie is true. That'd be like me burglarizing your home only to claim that you stole from me and I am merely recovering my own property. Who could possibly fault me for that? They make-believe so they can feel good about themselves. The "child support" industry is driven purely by emotion. America should be embarrassed about preaching freedom and liberty for all to other nations when it imprisons it's own citizens for minor money matters. Hell, they sure don't imprison the scumbags on Wall Street when they stole all the money that we will have to pay back. Not only did they get rich, they also got rewarded with more money from the same government that puts a man in jail for not having the ability to support his kids! |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
MA - Outrageous Injustice
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
MA - Outrageous Injustice
wrote in message ... On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 09:31:44 -0700, "Chris" wrote: The "child support" industry is driven purely by emotion. That and the lack of fathers paying support. Whether they pay such support or not, the industry still extorts them. Thus, your claim is false. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
MA - Outrageous Injustice
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:35:33 -0700, "DB" wrote:
"Peter Franks" wrote in message ... DB wrote: When the government starts to imprison it's citizens over money issues, it's time for a new government! Incarceration should be reserved largely for the purposes of segregating those that have demonstrated a tendency to maliciously and violently harm society. Quite right, this is an abuse of authority! No judge in this land should be allowed to impute a set income when a Father has lost his job thru no fault of his own. America should be embarrassed about preaching freedom and liberty for all to other nations when it imprisons it's own citizens for minor money matters. Hell, they sure don't imprison the scumbags on Wall Street when they stole all the money that we will have to pay back. Not only did they get rich, they also got rewarded with more money from the same government that puts a man in jail for not having the ability to support his kids! I think it's a mistake to accept -- even in the interests of keeping comments brief -- the notion that "child support" goes to support kids. "Child support" is money that the noncustodial parent (virtually always the father) owes to the custodial parent, and she is under no obligation to spend any of it on the children. Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence that state "child support" formulas are rigged to maximize the amount of money going to the mother. The truth is that men go to jail for not having the ability to pay money to their exes. Divorce industry participants disingenuously try to conceal this by saying that the money is owed to the children. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A permanent fixture of injustice: Child Protective Services | fx | Spanking | 0 | June 5th 08 06:02 AM |
A permanent fixture of injustice: Child Protective Services | fx | Foster Parents | 0 | June 5th 08 06:02 AM |
Outrageous | DB | Child Support | 1 | December 31st 05 06:18 AM |
Divorced Dads' White-Hot Sense of Injustice | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | June 26th 04 09:04 PM |
CA. Courts Can't Make Precedent, On Injustice At Men | Andre Lieven | Child Support | 9 | March 4th 04 04:16 AM |