Interesting book and interesting idea

This is the first chapter of an interesting book:

http://www.supportguidelines.com/book/chap1a.html

And it mentions an interesting idea:

"Some commentators believe that given the continually expansive role of
the federal government into heretofore matters of family law that were
the exclusive province of the states, it is surely only a matter of time
until the federal government adopts a national child support guideline
model."

I wonder if it might not be a GOOD thing for NCPs if the federal
government DID implement a national child support guideline model. Oh,
I'm sure it would be as unfair, clunky, and cumbersome as anything the
states have now, and you can be sure it would be based on
recommendations from Policy Studies, Inc... But it would also provide
the scattered men's rights groups with a unifying target to take aim
against, instead of keeping them divided and conquered. Instead of
trying to fight 50 different sets of state laws, they'd only be
challenging one (albeit federal) set of laws.

Any comments?

- Ron ^*^

In article q1k%[email protected], Werebat says...

This is the first chapter of an interesting book:

http://www.supportguidelines.com/book/chap1a.html

And it mentions an interesting idea:

"Some commentators believe that given the continually expansive role of
the federal government into heretofore matters of family law that were
the exclusive province of the states, it is surely only a matter of time
until the federal government adopts a national child support guideline
model."

I wonder if it might not be a GOOD thing for NCPs if the federal
government DID implement a national child support guideline model.
====
I have always been a proponent of a federal CS system. I see it as the only
possibility of a constitutionally compliant system. That's why it will never
happen. The states will never ever agree to give up the money and control. Too,
the feds would never want the onerous burden of enforcement.
====
====

What would be BEST, if child support guidelines become federal, would
be for a requirement that any committee formulating such guidelines
contain equal percentages of people from varying groups (i.e. NCP's,
CP's, spouses of NCP's, spouses of CP's) so that all concerns are
represented. Wouldn't it be better to "get it right" from the
beginning than to fight it later?

As a CP, I'd be willing to sit on such a committee... and my views are
not what is considered "mainstream CP."

For instance, my eldest child's father (to whom I was not married)
made it very clear that he desired I abort. I made a unilateral
decision to not and, therefore, felt fine with never asking for his
help in raising my child. I never believed he owed me or my child
anything because I made a decision which he could not. For the
record, my child never suffered from not knowing his father and had
plenty of wonderful male role models (to include my brother). It is
akin to my asking my mother how she felt about being an only child to
which her response was that she never missed what she did not have...
it seemed normal to her as it had always been. I have a personal
belief that men should have the same rights as women upon learning of
conception. In that vein, it would behoove women to seek confirmation
of pregnancy early enough to allow the man to make his decision so
that she may make hers as well. Can't find the father? Notification
procedures as in any other legal proceeding should suffice.

Then there is the issue of child support awards of divorcing couples.
I say there should be a 50/50 split in custody/expenses unless there
is a compelling reason not to. And even then, a child support award
should never go beyond the basics. Discretionary spending should
remain discretionary. If the divorce is for cause, punitive damages
should not be hidden in child support awards. Spousal support should
always be called what it is and not be hidden in child support awards.
For the record, every state has adopted a "minimal need for support"
for children already... it is in the welfare guidelines. Although I
disagree with the welfare guidelines in my state (I have a friend who
receives benefits), I can see coming up with a reasonable minimal need
and factoring it based upon each state's cost of living difference.
At any rate, a millionaire should be no more indebted to the child
support machine than a minimum wage worker... if it is truly based
upon a child's NEEDS. The millionaire may choose to make
discretionary expenditures for the children, but I seriously doubt
that the children would be living in poverty if there was no pre-nup.
And if there was, it should have included provisions for children that
would be above and beyond minimal needs.

I ALSO believe that, should guidelines go federal, that the IRS is
going to have to make some changes as well. If a man, for instance,
is ordered to pay 75% of the children needs, then he should be
entitled to 75% of the deductions. It would not be so hard for the
IRS to account for a percentage based upon a legal document.

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 14:21:46 -0500, Werebat
wrote:

This is the first chapter of an interesting book:

http://www.supportguidelines.com/book/chap1a.html

And it mentions an interesting idea:

"Some commentators believe that given the continually expansive role of
the federal government into heretofore matters of family law that were
the exclusive province of the states, it is surely only a matter of time
until the federal government adopts a national child support guideline
model."

I wonder if it might not be a GOOD thing for NCPs if the federal
government DID implement a national child support guideline model. Oh,
I'm sure it would be as unfair, clunky, and cumbersome as anything the
states have now, and you can be sure it would be based on
recommendations from Policy Studies, Inc... But it would also provide
the scattered men's rights groups with a unifying target to take aim
against, instead of keeping them divided and conquered. Instead of
trying to fight 50 different sets of state laws, they'd only be
challenging one (albeit federal) set of laws.

Any comments?

- Ron ^*^

I applaud you for your thoughts/beliefs and most of all your actions.
Reasonable, rational, fair.......hmmmmm

More women should think like you.






"Beverly" wrote in message
...
What would be BEST, if child support guidelines become federal, would
be for a requirement that any committee formulating such guidelines
contain equal percentages of people from varying groups (i.e. NCP's,
CP's, spouses of NCP's, spouses of CP's) so that all concerns are
represented. Wouldn't it be better to "get it right" from the
beginning than to fight it later?

As a CP, I'd be willing to sit on such a committee... and my views are
not what is considered "mainstream CP."

For instance, my eldest child's father (to whom I was not married)
made it very clear that he desired I abort. I made a unilateral
decision to not and, therefore, felt fine with never asking for his
help in raising my child. I never believed he owed me or my child
anything because I made a decision which he could not. For the
record, my child never suffered from not knowing his father and had
plenty of wonderful male role models (to include my brother). It is
akin to my asking my mother how she felt about being an only child to
which her response was that she never missed what she did not have...
it seemed normal to her as it had always been. I have a personal
belief that men should have the same rights as women upon learning of
conception. In that vein, it would behoove women to seek confirmation
of pregnancy early enough to allow the man to make his decision so
that she may make hers as well. Can't find the father? Notification
procedures as in any other legal proceeding should suffice.

Then there is the issue of child support awards of divorcing couples.
I say there should be a 50/50 split in custody/expenses unless there
is a compelling reason not to. And even then, a child support award
should never go beyond the basics. Discretionary spending should
remain discretionary. If the divorce is for cause, punitive damages
should not be hidden in child support awards. Spousal support should
always be called what it is and not be hidden in child support awards.
For the record, every state has adopted a "minimal need for support"
for children already... it is in the welfare guidelines. Although I
disagree with the welfare guidelines in my state (I have a friend who
receives benefits), I can see coming up with a reasonable minimal need
and factoring it based upon each state's cost of living difference.
At any rate, a millionaire should be no more indebted to the child
support machine than a minimum wage worker... if it is truly based
upon a child's NEEDS. The millionaire may choose to make
discretionary expenditures for the children, but I seriously doubt
that the children would be living in poverty if there was no pre-nup.
And if there was, it should have included provisions for children that
would be above and beyond minimal needs.

I ALSO believe that, should guidelines go federal, that the IRS is
going to have to make some changes as well. If a man, for instance,
is ordered to pay 75% of the children needs, then he should be
entitled to 75% of the deductions. It would not be so hard for the
IRS to account for a percentage based upon a legal document.

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 14:21:46 -0500, Werebat
wrote:

This is the first chapter of an interesting book:

http://www.supportguidelines.com/book/chap1a.html

And it mentions an interesting idea:

"Some commentators believe that given the continually expansive role of
the federal government into heretofore matters of family law that were
the exclusive province of the states, it is surely only a matter of time
until the federal government adopts a national child support guideline
model."

I wonder if it might not be a GOOD thing for NCPs if the federal
government DID implement a national child support guideline model. Oh,
I'm sure it would be as unfair, clunky, and cumbersome as anything the
states have now, and you can be sure it would be based on
recommendations from Policy Studies, Inc... But it would also provide
the scattered men's rights groups with a unifying target to take aim
against, instead of keeping them divided and conquered. Instead of
trying to fight 50 different sets of state laws, they'd only be
challenging one (albeit federal) set of laws.

Any comments?

- Ron ^*^

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:q1k%[email protected]...
This is the first chapter of an interesting book:

http://www.supportguidelines.com/book/chap1a.html

And it mentions an interesting idea:

"Some commentators believe that given the continually expansive role of
the federal government into heretofore matters of family law that were
the exclusive province of the states, it is surely only a matter of time
until the federal government adopts a national child support guideline
model."

I wonder if it might not be a GOOD thing for NCPs if the federal
government DID implement a national child support guideline model. Oh,
I'm sure it would be as unfair, clunky, and cumbersome as anything the
states have now, and you can be sure it would be based on
recommendations from Policy Studies, Inc... But it would also provide
the scattered men's rights groups with a unifying target to take aim
against, instead of keeping them divided and conquered. Instead of
trying to fight 50 different sets of state laws, they'd only be
challenging one (albeit federal) set of laws.

We already have a national CS guideline model. The program started in 1974
with passage of Title IV-D of the Social Security Act that tied together Aid
to Dependent Children and CS. In 1984 Congress added services to non-ADC
family CS laws. In 1988 Congress passed the Family Support Act adding
paternity establishment, use of CS guidelines, mandatory income withholding,
and periodic review of CS orders. In 1996 ADC was replaced with TANF, and
changes were made to paternity establishment, use of locator services, added
enforcement tools, and rules on how collects would be dispersed.

2/3 of the costs of implementing the CS guideline system are paid for by the
federal government. Federal incentive payments to the states reward
additional money to the states for compliance with federal CS programs. We
have federal laws regarding felonies for crossing state lines to avoid
paying CS, we have a federal $4 billion computer system to track everyone
who works, we have federal systems to track interstate CS orders, and we
have international treaties that facilitate enforcement of international CS
orders.

Anyone advocating for more federal involvement in CS, like a federal
standardized CS amount, is asking for more problems than we have already.
At least the current system allows for local state input into the guideline
dollar amounts. There is already too much federal involvement in the CS
guidelines.

Bob Whiteside wrote:
"Werebat" wrote in message
news:q1k%[email protected]...

This is the first chapter of an interesting book:

http://www.supportguidelines.com/book/chap1a.html

And it mentions an interesting idea:

"Some commentators believe that given the continually expansive role of
the federal government into heretofore matters of family law that were
the exclusive province of the states, it is surely only a matter of time
until the federal government adopts a national child support guideline
model."

I wonder if it might not be a GOOD thing for NCPs if the federal
government DID implement a national child support guideline model. Oh,
I'm sure it would be as unfair, clunky, and cumbersome as anything the
states have now, and you can be sure it would be based on
recommendations from Policy Studies, Inc... But it would also provide
the scattered men's rights groups with a unifying target to take aim
against, instead of keeping them divided and conquered. Instead of
trying to fight 50 different sets of state laws, they'd only be
challenging one (albeit federal) set of laws.


We already have a national CS guideline model. The program started in 1974
with passage of Title IV-D of the Social Security Act that tied together Aid
to Dependent Children and CS. In 1984 Congress added services to non-ADC
family CS laws. In 1988 Congress passed the Family Support Act adding
paternity establishment, use of CS guidelines, mandatory income withholding,
and periodic review of CS orders. In 1996 ADC was replaced with TANF, and
changes were made to paternity establishment, use of locator services, added
enforcement tools, and rules on how collects would be dispersed.

2/3 of the costs of implementing the CS guideline system are paid for by the
federal government. Federal incentive payments to the states reward
additional money to the states for compliance with federal CS programs. We
have federal laws regarding felonies for crossing state lines to avoid
paying CS, we have a federal $4 billion computer system to track everyone
who works, we have federal systems to track interstate CS orders, and we
have international treaties that facilitate enforcement of international CS
orders.

Anyone advocating for more federal involvement in CS, like a federal
standardized CS amount, is asking for more problems than we have already.
At least the current system allows for local state input into the guideline
dollar amounts. There is already too much federal involvement in the CS
guidelines.

Which breaks them apart into 50 little petty fiefs that men must try to
organize themselves against. Imagine if they could pool their resources
against just ONE.

- Ron ^*^

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:rEn%[email protected]...


Bob Whiteside wrote:
"Werebat" wrote in message
news:q1k%[email protected]...

This is the first chapter of an interesting book:

http://www.supportguidelines.com/book/chap1a.html

And it mentions an interesting idea:

"Some commentators believe that given the continually expansive role of
the federal government into heretofore matters of family law that were
the exclusive province of the states, it is surely only a matter of time
until the federal government adopts a national child support guideline
model."

I wonder if it might not be a GOOD thing for NCPs if the federal
government DID implement a national child support guideline model. Oh,
I'm sure it would be as unfair, clunky, and cumbersome as anything the
states have now, and you can be sure it would be based on
recommendations from Policy Studies, Inc... But it would also provide
the scattered men's rights groups with a unifying target to take aim
against, instead of keeping them divided and conquered. Instead of
trying to fight 50 different sets of state laws, they'd only be
challenging one (albeit federal) set of laws.


We already have a national CS guideline model. The program started in
1974
with passage of Title IV-D of the Social Security Act that tied together
Aid
to Dependent Children and CS. In 1984 Congress added services to
non-ADC
family CS laws. In 1988 Congress passed the Family Support Act adding
paternity establishment, use of CS guidelines, mandatory income
withholding,
and periodic review of CS orders. In 1996 ADC was replaced with TANF,
and
changes were made to paternity establishment, use of locator services,
added
enforcement tools, and rules on how collects would be dispersed.

2/3 of the costs of implementing the CS guideline system are paid for by
the
federal government. Federal incentive payments to the states reward
additional money to the states for compliance with federal CS programs.
We
have federal laws regarding felonies for crossing state lines to avoid
paying CS, we have a federal $4 billion computer system to track
everyone
who works, we have federal systems to track interstate CS orders, and we
have international treaties that facilitate enforcement of international
CS
orders.

Anyone advocating for more federal involvement in CS, like a federal
standardized CS amount, is asking for more problems than we have
already.
At least the current system allows for local state input into the
guideline
dollar amounts. There is already too much federal involvement in the CS
guidelines.

Which breaks them apart into 50 little petty fiefs that men must try to
organize themselves against. Imagine if they could pool their resources
against just ONE.

Have you considered that advocating this change to marriage law (which
includes things like divorce, SS, and CS) is a constitutional issue that
would alter current states' rights?

Bob Whiteside wrote:
"Werebat" wrote in message
news:rEn%[email protected]...


Bob Whiteside wrote:

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:q1k%[email protected]...


This is the first chapter of an interesting book:

http://www.supportguidelines.com/book/chap1a.html

And it mentions an interesting idea:

"Some commentators believe that given the continually expansive role of
the federal government into heretofore matters of family law that were
the exclusive province of the states, it is surely only a matter of time
until the federal government adopts a national child support guideline
model."

I wonder if it might not be a GOOD thing for NCPs if the federal
government DID implement a national child support guideline model. Oh,
I'm sure it would be as unfair, clunky, and cumbersome as anything the
states have now, and you can be sure it would be based on
recommendations from Policy Studies, Inc... But it would also provide
the scattered men's rights groups with a unifying target to take aim
against, instead of keeping them divided and conquered. Instead of
trying to fight 50 different sets of state laws, they'd only be
challenging one (albeit federal) set of laws.


We already have a national CS guideline model. The program started in

1974

with passage of Title IV-D of the Social Security Act that tied together

Aid

to Dependent Children and CS. In 1984 Congress added services to

non-ADC

family CS laws. In 1988 Congress passed the Family Support Act adding
paternity establishment, use of CS guidelines, mandatory income

withholding,

and periodic review of CS orders. In 1996 ADC was replaced with TANF,

and

changes were made to paternity establishment, use of locator services,

added

enforcement tools, and rules on how collects would be dispersed.

2/3 of the costs of implementing the CS guideline system are paid for by

the

federal government. Federal incentive payments to the states reward
additional money to the states for compliance with federal CS programs.

We

have federal laws regarding felonies for crossing state lines to avoid
paying CS, we have a federal $4 billion computer system to track

everyone

who works, we have federal systems to track interstate CS orders, and we
have international treaties that facilitate enforcement of international

CS

orders.

Anyone advocating for more federal involvement in CS, like a federal
standardized CS amount, is asking for more problems than we have

already.

At least the current system allows for local state input into the

guideline

dollar amounts. There is already too much federal involvement in the CS
guidelines.

Which breaks them apart into 50 little petty fiefs that men must try to
organize themselves against. Imagine if they could pool their resources
against just ONE.


Have you considered that advocating this change to marriage law (which
includes things like divorce, SS, and CS) is a constitutional issue that
would alter current states' rights?

Seems to me like that's already been done, hasn't it?

- Ron ^*^

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:wTo%[email protected]...


Bob Whiteside wrote:
"Werebat" wrote in message
news:rEn%[email protected]...


Bob Whiteside wrote:

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:q1k%[email protected]...


This is the first chapter of an interesting book:

http://www.supportguidelines.com/book/chap1a.html

And it mentions an interesting idea:

"Some commentators believe that given the continually expansive role
of
the federal government into heretofore matters of family law that were
the exclusive province of the states, it is surely only a matter of
time
until the federal government adopts a national child support guideline
model."

I wonder if it might not be a GOOD thing for NCPs if the federal
government DID implement a national child support guideline model.
Oh,
I'm sure it would be as unfair, clunky, and cumbersome as anything the
states have now, and you can be sure it would be based on
recommendations from Policy Studies, Inc... But it would also provide
the scattered men's rights groups with a unifying target to take aim
against, instead of keeping them divided and conquered. Instead of
trying to fight 50 different sets of state laws, they'd only be
challenging one (albeit federal) set of laws.


We already have a national CS guideline model. The program started in

1974

with passage of Title IV-D of the Social Security Act that tied
together

Aid

to Dependent Children and CS. In 1984 Congress added services to

non-ADC

family CS laws. In 1988 Congress passed the Family Support Act adding
paternity establishment, use of CS guidelines, mandatory income

withholding,

and periodic review of CS orders. In 1996 ADC was replaced with TANF,

and

changes were made to paternity establishment, use of locator services,

added

enforcement tools, and rules on how collects would be dispersed.

2/3 of the costs of implementing the CS guideline system are paid for
by

the

federal government. Federal incentive payments to the states reward
additional money to the states for compliance with federal CS programs.

We

have federal laws regarding felonies for crossing state lines to avoid
paying CS, we have a federal $4 billion computer system to track

everyone

who works, we have federal systems to track interstate CS orders, and
we
have international treaties that facilitate enforcement of
international

CS

orders.

Anyone advocating for more federal involvement in CS, like a federal
standardized CS amount, is asking for more problems than we have

already.

At least the current system allows for local state input into the

guideline

dollar amounts. There is already too much federal involvement in the
CS
guidelines.

Which breaks them apart into 50 little petty fiefs that men must try to
organize themselves against. Imagine if they could pool their resources
against just ONE.


Have you considered that advocating this change to marriage law (which
includes things like divorce, SS, and CS) is a constitutional issue that
would alter current states' rights?

Seems to me like that's already been done, hasn't it?

Technically, no! But taking this to the next stage could really cause a
constitutional crisis. There is a huge difference between telling a state
they have a choice to accept broad federal guidelines on how to administrate
CS programs to share in federal money versus actually creating the program
(CS guidelines) with details they must adopt.

I have been concerned for some time about the proposed U.S. Constitutional
amendment regarding same-sex marriage. Once the topic of marriage is
codified in the constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court could start injecting
itself into marriage even further. The activist court has already been
dictating to the states on other states' rights issues like election law,
sodomy law, abortion law, death penalty law, etc.

Your original source is a group of lawyers who are active in the American
Bar Association. They want to change family law to benefit lawyers, not
fathers.

yea, then, instead of 50 there'd be 51. the federal model and all the states
clones...

which already exists. heavy reading, but statues of law are informative...
if you can get around the over accurate legaleese; intended to clarify, but
usually only to the consistency of liquid clay, or bentonite slurry.
jd


"Werebat" wrote in message
news:q1k%[email protected]...
This is the first chapter of an interesting book:

http://www.supportguidelines.com/book/chap1a.html

And it mentions an interesting idea:

"Some commentators believe that given the continually expansive role of
the federal government into heretofore matters of family law that were
the exclusive province of the states, it is surely only a matter of time
until the federal government adopts a national child support guideline
model."

I wonder if it might not be a GOOD thing for NCPs if the federal
government DID implement a national child support guideline model. Oh,
I'm sure it would be as unfair, clunky, and cumbersome as anything the
states have now, and you can be sure it would be based on
recommendations from Policy Studies, Inc... But it would also provide
the scattered men's rights groups with a unifying target to take aim
against, instead of keeping them divided and conquered. Instead of
trying to fight 50 different sets of state laws, they'd only be
challenging one (albeit federal) set of laws.

Any comments?

- Ron ^*^