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
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
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. 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. 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. 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. How long can this continue? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
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? 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..." - Ron ^*^ |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"Werebat" wrote in message news:V%kIg.2199$Zm1.1201@dukeread02... 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? 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..." People like him like to remain willfuly ignorant on these issues.....their scum! - Ron ^*^ |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"Col. Tuttle USAF NI" Col. Tuttle USAF ash.us wrote in message news:molIg.20972$tP4.15290@clgrps12... .... People like him like to remain willfuly ignorant on these issues.....their scum! Hyderpork is a guy? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"Meldon Fens" wrote in message ... "Col. Tuttle USAF NI" Col. Tuttle USAF ash.us wrote in message news:molIg.20972$tP4.15290@clgrps12... .... People like him like to remain willfuly ignorant on these issues.....their scum! Hyderpork is a guy? who cares: the fact is government terrorism and slavery is a crime |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
Col. Tuttle USAF NI wrote: "Werebat" wrote in message news:V%kIg.2199$Zm1.1201@dukeread02... 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? 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..." People like him like to remain willfuly ignorant on these issues.....their scum! Yes I know. He claims to have used his credentials to somehow self-aggrandize his position when the facts are good enough for you and me. Thank you for your wonderful contributions. - Ron ^*^ |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
Hyerdahl wrote: Col. Tuttle USAF NI wrote: "Werebat" wrote in message news:V%kIg.2199$Zm1.1201@dukeread02... 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? 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..." People like him like to remain willfuly ignorant on these issues.....their scum! Yes I know. He claims to have used his credentials to somehow self-aggrandize his position when the facts are good enough for you and me. Thank you for your wonderful contributions. Oh, I get it. You're a word weasel. OK, 'nuff said. - Ron ^*^ |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"Werebat" wrote in message news:V%kIg.2199$Zm1.1201@dukeread02... .. Hyerdahl, what is your family court and CSE experience? 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..." - Ron ^*^ Just see how effective that argument is for a father driven into poverty. The best he can hope for is a bunch of grunts followed by a bunch of laughter. We're all catching on though. That laughter is strained at best and is a thinly veiled disguise for a fear that the truth will be uncovered and all that funding dries up. What will the fat, gold-digging whores do then? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
Meldon Fens wrote: "Werebat" wrote in message news:V%kIg.2199$Zm1.1201@dukeread02... .. Hyerdahl, what is your family court and CSE experience? 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..." - Ron ^*^ Just see how effective that argument is for a father driven into poverty. The best he can hope for is a bunch of grunts followed by a bunch of laughter. We're all catching on though. That laughter is strained at best and is a thinly veiled disguise for a fear that the truth will be uncovered and all that funding dries up. What will the fat, gold-digging whores do then? Society will always protect do-nothings who have responsibility to children, because it isn't good PR to let children suffer for their parents' shiftlessness. One step in the right direction would be always awarding custody to the financially solvent parent, barring a proven history of abuse or neglect. - Ron ^*^ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NCP ACTION ALERT!!! NY Shared Parenting bill under attack!! | Dusty | Child Support | 4 | March 8th 06 06:45 AM |
NFJA Position Statement: Child Support Enforcement Funding | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | March 2nd 06 12:49 AM |
Child Support Guidelines are UNFAIR! Lets join together to fight them! | S Myers | Child Support | 115 | September 12th 05 12:37 AM |
Child Support Policy and the Welfare of Women and Children | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | May 13th 04 12:46 AM |
The Determination of Child Custody in the USA | Fighting for kids | Child Support | 21 | November 17th 03 01:35 AM |