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

MA - Outrageous Injustice



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 14th 09, 06:43 AM posted to alt.child-support
Dusty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 340
Default 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  
Old April 14th 09, 06:56 AM posted to alt.child-support
Dusty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 340
Default 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  
Old April 14th 09, 04:48 PM posted to alt.child-support
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default 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  
Old April 15th 09, 02:58 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.usa.constitution
DB[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 266
Default 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  
Old April 15th 09, 03:09 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Peter Franks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default 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  
Old April 15th 09, 03:35 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.usa.constitution
DB[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 266
Default 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  
Old April 15th 09, 05:31 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default 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!






  #9  
Old April 15th 09, 08:56 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default 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  
Old April 15th 09, 11:10 PM posted to alt.child-support
Kenneth S.[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default 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

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
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 07:18 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 05:16 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:06 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.