A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Chlid support before the guidelines



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 2nd 03, 07:21 AM
Fighting for kids
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Chlid support before the guidelines

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

  #2  
Old November 2nd 03, 02:46 PM
Lecher9000
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Chlid support before the guidelines

The concept of "fault" was used, I would hope, in determining the amount of
support, or whether any support was ordered. The stereotypical "lazy leach wife
who refuses to work" probably accounted for the low awards and the denial of
awards. One would hope so, at least.
  #3  
Old November 2nd 03, 03:30 PM
Paul Fritz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Chlid support before the guidelines


"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


  #4  
Old November 2nd 03, 05:34 PM
Fighting for kids
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Chlid support before the guidelines

It was just an article I found. So please dont direct your comments at me personally. Also, some states dont use the age of 18 they use the age of 21, and in the case of states that use 18 if the child is in college then the payment continues until the child is 21.

Im not turning off my html, buy a better computer and better internet connection.

"Paul Fritz" wrote in message ...

"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


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[FAQ] Posting guidelines for misc.kids.moderated Moderation Team General (moderated) 0 February 5th 04 09:25 PM
[FAQ] Posting guidelines for misc.kids.moderated Moderation Team General (moderated) 0 December 5th 03 10:29 PM
[FAQ] Posting guidelines for misc.kids.moderated Moderation Team General (moderated) 0 November 5th 03 10:07 PM
[FAQ] Posting guidelines for misc.kids.moderated Moderation Team General (moderated) 0 October 5th 03 08:14 PM
[FAQ] Posting guidelines for misc.kids.moderated Moderation Team General (moderated) 0 July 5th 03 10:01 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.