See FathersUnite.org for: Education ♦ Legislation ♦ Civil Protest ♦ Membership ♦ Fundraising
Dedicated to Restoring Justice to the Corrupt Family Court System Through Equal Rights for Both Parents in Divorce
Child Support Guidelines - Support or Extortion?
Most judges are breaking the law as they please on child support by denying due process, imputing income only to men, forcing you (men) into jobs they don't want and many other violations of constitutional rights. This is intimidation to force you to effectively become a slave to the state and your ex-wife. All this is hidden under the claim this is in the "best interest of the children". Who could argue with what's best for the children is maximum access to both parents? Most fathers want to support their children in ways other than financially by having them in their home. Child support is effectively a blackmail or extortion system whereby the state takes you children unconstitutionally, and then uses that excuse to charge you extortion fees weekly for the privilege of NOT having your children! You will find here many pages of true stories and reference material.
This page has a listing of all the information on this site on the issue of child support. Although much is Massachusetts specific, the worst state in the nation according to many, the bulk of the information outside of actual child support calculation figures is likely to apply.
Child Support Enforcement is WELFARE. It is paid for exclusively out of the Title IV-D of Title 42 USC 655 & 42 USC 658.
Child-Support Payments now 4.6 million - Number of fathers who provide child support. All in all, 84 percent of
child-support providers are men, who provide median payments of $3,600 annually.
Information Offered to the Child Support Review Committee:
Financial Incentives and Kickbacks For More Child Support:
Child Support guidelines would/should meet the following criteria:
1. Child support should only be allowed when a father or mother abandon their child and refuse to take care of them and the parents can not agree among themselves what that should be. It should never be awarded if the parent wants to care for their children for 50% of the time. This is now proven better for children but the courts are still operating of "scientific research" from the 1950's. Giving custody to the other parent (illegally) is no reason to subject a parent to child support.
2. Child support should not create the huge financial incentive it does for the custodial parent to get a free ride on the other parent for 18-23 years. Child support would be capped at some reasonable and necessary level of expenses per child and shared equally by both parents, or in proportion to earnings. When a divorce happens it is ridiculous and unfair to expect the standard of living of two households to remain the same when the same income now supports both. The second parent must work more, as the first parent was likely already working full-time time. The second parent can not be made to work twice as much!
3. Child support should be about the incremental cost of the children, not including the living expenses of the custodial spouse. Child support would take into account the real costs and the percentage of time the children spend with each parent. Child support should NOT be a function of a parents income, but a function of what a reasonable and married parent would actually spend on the children (Massachusetts imply families spend 80% of their take-home pay on their children by charging dad 40% of take-home pay in child extortion.) Taking away a parents right to decide what to spend on their child after divorce denies them a right they have in marriage and creates a class of people that are discriminated against by this artificially created classification.
Other Child Support Pages:
Child support statistics - http://www.fathersforlife.org/CS/usa/child_support_data_us.htm
Arguments to make in court and motions:
- You are a WILLING parent and no criminal neglect or abuse has been found against you. The fact that you want to be a parent is unacceptable to the State and to the Mom because in order to profit from your children they have to say you are not around or have abandoned the children.
- The State is engaged in LIMITING your involvement by ORDER.
- The Mom is engaged in LIMITING your involvement by DENYING YOU MORE TIME.
- The State and Mom are now working together to make the argument that you have abandoned the family because you are not present.
- The State and Mom are forcing you into having to turn over your finances (WARD OF THE STATE) to someone else. You are being penalized without a finding that you have committed a crime.
- The State and Mom are BOTH welfare recipients (State from Fed) (Mom from State & You) because she cannot maintain her own home without your resources. The State cannot fit you into the Title IV-D Welfare model unless you have limited involvement with your child.
- The State is aiding in the neglect of your child because Mom cannot sustain her own Home and is a welfare recipient. She is unfit and the State and She is trying to make you pay for it.
- If the State wants to limit your involvement and your ex is denying you contact, then the State should be taking care of welfare recipient, not you. You should continue to enjoy the same freedoms as before the separation.
Web site dedicated to Child Support Issues - http://www.supportguidelines.com/main.html
Great Resources Page: &nbsb;http://www.supportguidelines.com/resources.html
Recent Child Support Cases &nbsb;http://www.supportguidelines.com/articles/news.html
Imputed income must be proven by opposing side even when past income has reached this level
Buchholz v. Buchholz, 166 S.W.3d 146 (Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, July 7, 2005): The trial court's imputation of income to the husband in the amount of $145,000 was not supported by substantial evidence, despite evidence that the husband earned approximately $145,000 per year prior to failure of his business and his filing for bankruptcy, and despite the court's finding that the husband's testimony concerning his efforts to obtain employment was not credible, since the wife presented no evidence that the husband had made less than a good faith effort to obtain employment or that such employment was available, and nothing in the record indicated that the husband's diminished income was the result of a deliberate or voluntary attempt to avoid support obligations.
L. P. Hollander Company v. William H. Porter, 267 Mass. 378; 166 N.E. 724; 1929
Common Law right of reciprocals again: "When a father has the duty to support his child he has a right to determine what the character of that support shall be."
LEGAL PRIMER ON CHILD SUPPORT
QUESTION: What is the maximum amount that they can take out for arrearages in child support under the law?
ANSWER: The answer is provided in 15 USCS § 1673. Although most creditors can only take 25% of your “disposable earnings,” child support is divided into three categories:
- If you supporting others, no more than 50% of your income.
- If you are not supporting others, no more than 60% of your “disposable income,” unless arrears are more than 12 weeks, which it can go up to 65% of your “disposable income.”
“Disposable income” certainly includes income only after taxes and social security are removed.
The law is unclear about child support.
15 USCS § 1673 (2005)
§ 1673. Restriction on garnishment
(a) Maximum allowable garnishment. Except as provided in subsection (b) and in section 305 [15 USCS § 1675], the maximum part of the aggregate disposable earnings of an individual for any workweek which is subject to garnishment may not exceed
(1) 25 per centum of his disposable earnings for that week, or
(2) the amount by which his disposable earnings for that week exceed thirty times the Federal minimum hourly wage prescribed by section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 [29 USCS § 206(a)(1)] in effect at the time the earnings are payable,
whichever is less. In the case of earnings for any pay period other than a week, the Secretary of Labor shall by regulation prescribe a multiple of the Federal minimum hourly wage equivalent in effect to that set forth in paragraph (2).
(1) The restrictions of subsection (a) do not apply in the case of--
(A) any order for the support of any person issued by a court of competent jurisdiction or in accordance with an administrative procedure, which is established by State law, which affords substantial due process, and which is subject to judicial review.
(B) any order of any court of the United States having jurisdiction over cases under chapter 13 of title 11 of the United States Code [11 USCS §§ 1301 et seq.]
(C) any debt due for any State or Federal tax.
(2) The maximum part of the aggregate disposable earnings of an individual for any workweek which is subject to garnishment to enforce any order for the support of any person shall not exceed--
(A) where such individual is supporting his spouse or dependent child (other than a spouse or child with respect to whose support such order is used), 50 per centum of such individual's disposable earnings for that week; and
(B) where such individual is not supporting such a spouse or dependent child described in clause (A), 60 per centum of such individual's disposable earnings for that week;
except that, with respect to the disposable earnings of any individual for any workweek, the 50 per centum specified in clause (A) shall be deemed to be 55 per centum and the 60 per centum specified in clause (B) shall be deemed to be 65 per centum, if and to the extent that such earnings are subject to garnishment to enforce a support order with respect to a period which is prior to the twelve-week period which ends with the beginning of such workweek.
(c) Execution or enforcement of garnishment order or process prohibited. No court of the United States or any State, and no State (or officer or agency thereof), may make, execute, or enforce any order or process in violation of this section.
15 USCS § 1673
The term disposable income is defined in 15 USCS § 1672:
15 USCS § 1672 (2005)
§ 1672. Definitions
For the purposes of this title [15 USCS §§ 1671 et seq.]:
(a) The term "earnings" means compensation paid or payable for personal services, whether denominated as wages, salary, commission, bonus, or otherwise, and includes periodic payments pursuant to a pension or retirement program.
(b) The term "disposable earnings" means that part of the earnings of any individual remaining after the deduction from those earnings of any amounts required by law to be withheld.
(c) The term "garnishment" means any legal or equitable procedure through which the earnings of any individual are required to be withheld for payment of any debt.
15 USCS § 1672
One court has interpreted “disposable income” as meaning income after taxes, less one’s support obligation.
“As we construe title III of the Consumer Credit Protection Act (US Code, tit 15, §§ 1671-1677), the maximum amount which may be garnished from the earnings of an individual for any workweek is 25% of his "disposable earnings" (i.e., after-tax earnings [see US Code, tit 15, § 1672, subd [b]), except in the case of an order for support, in which event the maximum is 50% of disposable earnings, and up to 60% where the individual receiving support is a spouse or dependent child (US Code, tit 15, § 1673).” General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Metropolitan Opera Asso., 98 Misc. 2d 307, 308 (N.Y. Misc. 1978)
The court also held:
The above view of the Federal legislation is espoused by the Secretary of Labor, who is charged with the enforcement of its provisions (US Code, tit 15, § 1676), and whose interpretation, if not irrational or unreasonable, is to be accorded great weight ( Matter of Howard v Wyman, 28 NY2d 434, 438; Brennan v Kroger Co., 513 F2d 961). Petitioner's contention that payroll deductions required under a support order should not be included when computing the percentage reduction of a [*309] debtor's disposable earnings is not an accurate reading of the language of the statute. HN4The term "garnishment" is not restricted but includes any legal or equitable procedure through which the earnings of an individual are required to be withheld for payment of any debt -- thus encompassing orders of support as well as ordinary creditor-debtor garnishments (see US Code, tit 15, § 1672, subd [c]). The cases relied upon by [***5] petitioner (e.g., Costa v Chevrolet-Tonawanda Div. of Gen. Motors Corp., 53 Misc 2d 252, affd 24 AD2d 732) antedate the passage of title III of the act, and are not controlling. This court is bound to give precedence to the provisions of the Federal statute (US Code, tit 15, § 1673, subd [c]), and we decide the case in a manner which will best further the manifest congressional purpose of maximizing a debtor's share of his own earnings.
General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Metropolitan Opera Asso., 98 Misc. 2d 307, 308-309 (N.Y. Misc. 1978)
Other courts appear to disagree.
Alimony and child support payments, even if ordered by court, are not "amounts required by law to be withheld" and therefore must be included in debtor's "disposable earnings" within meaning of § 302(b) of the Consumer Credit Protection Act (15 USCS § 1672(b)). First Nat'l Bank v Hasty (1976, ED Mich) 415 F Supp 170,affd without op (1977, CA6 Mich)573 F2d 1310 and affd without op (1977, CA6 Mich)573 F2d 1310.
Biweekly wage assignment of $130 for child support previously ordered in dissolution of marriage action is part of wage earner's disposable earnings within meaning of 15 USCS § 1672(b), since amounts withheld pursuant to court order are not "required by law to be withheld," which means deductions for federal, state and local withholding taxes, and social security taxes.Koethe v Johnson (1982, Iowa) 328 NW2d 293.
Deadbeat Dad Propaganda Continues
Progress is Being Made In Father's Rights Now
Events like the one detailed below are still happening where the press and politicians do not understand the real problem is not "deadbeat dads", this is just a symptom.Unfair and illegal orders for child support, which are really "child extortion", because they are five to ten times the actual cost of raising a child are the REAL problem. Fathers should be paying only one half of the actual cost of raising children, unless THEY decide not to do their part and WANT to pay the mother to take more responsibilities, shifting some (not all) of the financial burden.
The political establishment is beginning to get the message that things MUST change, but there is a long way to go on the "Shared Parenting" journey. Shared parenting is the only constitutional solution that respects the rights of both fathers and mothers. Politicians seek to cuddle up to the feminist political powerbase that has no male equivalent yet. Times are a changing though. Take action. Join one of these groups and contribute $5 per month - instead of tens of thousands a year extra for up to 23 years!
This is an example of what happens to NCPs who -- for whatever reason -- fail to appear in court to defend themselves. This sort of story -- and the actions of these 30 people -- sets the movement back years and simply justifies those in the Democratic Party -- and elsewhere -- who perpetuate the HOAX of the "deadbeat Dad."
A Beautiful and to the Point Letter
Reprint - Letter to the Editor, The Trinitonian, April 22, 2005, San Antonio, Texas
Your April 15 article, “Former rushing champ pays for child,” said that Ricky Williams, former running back for the Miami Dolphins, was ordered to pay $4,200 per month in child support for his son.
If my math is correct, this will equal $50,400 per year. Also, if my math is correct, according to calculations from the 2004 US Department of Health and Social Services*, this is approximately the poverty level for a family of 10 in Hawaii, where the mother chooses to reside.
Certainly both parents should support their child. But it is figures like these that show the Child Support Industry is totally out of whack. The concept of 50/50 shared parenting would bring a much needed dose of realism to a misandric legislative and judicial system.
Justice for fathers is not found in family courts; this must change.
Most of us agree that the child support system is very wrong. Take for instance my case when I got divorced. If $20,000.00 of the ex's income is to go towards day care, well then my judge gave her another $20,000.00 on top of that. Basically my ex is not supporting my children, all she is doing is letting them sleep in the house. My income is roughly 750.00 before taxes. Of that I must pay $334 per week for child support. Another 75.00 per week for day care. and if my children go to camp in the summer which they do, I must pay an additional 1/3 for the cost of the camp. which this year it came to 3200.00. then I must pay 1500.00 (500 per child) in clothing allowance on September 1st and December 1st. Oh and the house that we owned together, when she sold it. I had to pay not only for my divorce lawyer, but hers as well, and she was the one who wanted the divorce. All this the judge gave her because he once practiced law in the same firm as her lawyer. But you figure out the math. I am forced to live on a meager existence of around 75 dollars a week. Thank god I have a girl friend.
Fathers are carrying the entire financial burden of children and more. This is NOT equal rights for women!
Disabled for the last year, unable to get a doctor to clear me for work, a year of no income and finally getting disability of 846 dollars a month.
So this puts me behind about 6, 000 dollars in support, the mother and her lawyer is demanding 1,000 dollars by Tuesday or they will ask the judge for jail time.
I made the mistake last month of borrowing 1,000 dollars, but now there isn’t any way I can come up with any money, most of my family know it would be next to impossible to repay, But the mother thinks 30 days in jail will produce 1,000 dollars.
I’m really thinking of not going to court Tuesday, so I can spend the holidays with my family, but couldn’t with my youngest, because the mother would have me arrested.
Not in the next few weeks my 5 year old will have her tonsils removed, and there is no way I can help her through this.
It would be nice if all available people could protest the court, mother and her attorney, because I feel they would be right if I was eligible to go to work, but I’m not.
People often say you can’t get blood from a stone, but the court will surely try,
Also finally after 8 month my motion to modify will be heard but not before going up about 3,500 dollars, no way can I believe the court will agree to it retroactive.
Parents Without Rights and Florida Civil Rights Council
POB 480089, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33348-0089
Parents Without Rights sponsors the JAIL 4 Judged: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FloridaJail4Judges/
Parents Without Rights sponsors the CRC's class action suit: www.IndianaCRC.org
Parents Without Rights is the Florida liaison for the Million Dads March. Please visit www.MillionDadsMarch.org
Michael the Black Man is changing! Coming soon, the Michael the Black Man Television Program. Please visit www.Boss-Media.net
Miguel Martin needs YOUR support for the class action suit he filed in behalf of all non-custodial parents in Florida: www.ParentsBeforeTheCourt.org
By The Associated Press
NEW HAVEN, Conn. (AP) -- State marshals arrested 30 parents accused of owing more than $1 million in child support payments during a sweep conducted in New Haven County Friday night through yesterday. The roundup was an effort by the state attorney general's office, the Department of Social Services, the Judicial Branch and the State Marshal Commission targeting parents who have ignored orders to appear in court for unpaid child support.
Six parents arrested each owed more than $50,000 in back support payments, and 17 owed more than $20,000 apiece, authorities said. "This sweep sends a stark and simple message: Show up in court or you'll be picked up," Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said. "Whether they are dead broke or deadbeats, parents have an obligation to appear in court and to support their children."
Blumenthal added that enforcement such as the arrests over the weekend is only one part of the solution. He said the state also needs programs to reconnect absentee parents with their children, strengthen emotional bonds and encourage parental responsibility. Social Services Commissioner Patricia Wilson-Coker said the weekend's sweep was an extreme measure, but it served as a reminder that the state will do everything possible to ensure that children get the financial support they deserve.
Parents who were arrested were taken to the Whalley Avenue jail in New Haven. Those who posted bail were given court dates to face contempt hearings. Others who were unable to post bond were to appear in court today.
Odds are most of these people have been financially crushed and devastated by the child support orders they got from courts. Would a dad who was married go to jail for losing their job, or falling behind on financial obligations? - Never-- that would be illegal!!
Judges assume any father who is not making their child support payments is purposely "under-employed" and uses intimidation, jail and lack of due process to get money out of dad. This is almost never the case with mothers, showing great sexual discrimination, or invidious gender discrimination.
Here, MA admits the transferral of child support to the wider middle class as Lary has enumerated...
Due Process Provisions
In Gray v. Commissioner of Revenue, 422 Mass. 666 (1996), a case questioning whether DOR could seize property of a child support obligor in satisfaction of child support arrearages where the obligor was repaying the arrearage at the rate ordered by a probate court judge, the Supreme Judicial Court found that DOR’s procedures for administrative enforcement passed constitutional muster. The court rejected the noncustodial parent’s claims both that his due-process rights were violated and that the seizure and the statute under which it took place violated article 30 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, relating to separation of powers. With respect to the separation of powers claim, the SJC found that the Legislature’s conferring power upon DOR to levy property was not essential to the probate court’s power, and in fact it enforced the court’s authority under the order. Nor did the court find that DOR’s action was an unconstitutional executive modification of the court’s order, finding instead that the seizure was not in conflict with the decree, but entirely consistent with it. Finally, the court rejected the due-process claim, noting that the seizure had been preceded by a trial in which the arrearage was set, and that notice and an opportunity for administrative review had been provided. Looking at the governmental interest at stake,
the court observed, "It is hard to imagine a more compelling state interest than the support of its children." Id., at 675.
§ 9.32 CONCLUSION
As child support becomes the critical safety net for families leaving or avoiding public assistance, the mission of the program continues to expand. At its inception in 1975, Congress created a federal-state partnership designed to increase child support collections as a means of reimbursing the public fisc for public assistance costs. Since then, Congress has expanded the mission to require states to provide services to families not on public assistance, in the expectation that regular payment of child support will enable these families to remain self-sufficient. Congress has also pushed states to strengthen their enforcement remedies, with an ever-expanding arsenal of tough enforcement tools, ranging from universal wage assignments and computer-driven seizures of income and assets to license revocation and criminal prosecution. Automation will reach approximately 60 percent of child support obligors. In Massachusetts, for example, if the noncustodial parent has a job, a bank account, or a driver’s or professional license; collects unemployment or worker’s compensation; or pays taxes, DOR can probably collect support. It is more difficult to get at the self-employed, the unemployed, the underemployed, and the "under the table" employed. This remaining 40 percent will therefore require a multi-pronged strategy for a multi-dimensional problem: high-visibility criminal prosecutions and other tough enforcement initiatives to continue to galvanize public attention and encourage voluntary compliance, accompanied by more sophisticated outreach programs that support positive and responsible involvement of fathers in the lives of their children and include collaboration with "seek work" and job training programs for low-income, unemployed fathers.
As a result of the welfare reform debate, in a short amount of time, the long-term harmful consequences on children of growing up in a single-parent family have reached the public’s awareness. With a third of children born out of wedlock and half of marriages ending in divorce, more than half of the children of this generation will spend at least part of their childhood in a single-parent household. Of these, an estimated 73 percent will experience periods of poverty during their minority, as compared to only 20 percent of children raised with two parents in the home. Perhaps worse than periodic economic deprivation are the increased risks of other social disadvantages. Children growing up with only one parent are three times more likely to have a child out of wedlock, 2.5 times more likely to become teen mothers, twice as likely to drop out of school, and 1.4 times as likely to be idle -- out of school and out of work as young adults. They are at greater risk of substance abuse, depression, juvenile delinquency, and a host of other social dysfunctions. These risk factors cut across race, sex, parents’ education, and place of residence. McLanahan and Sandefur, Growing Up with a Single Parent, pp. 2-3, Harvard University Press (1994).
While Congress and state legislatures should not legislate morality, they can support parent education programs that strengthen marriage and discourage out-of-wedlock births. Today the cultural norms that militate against marriage -- as reflected in television, movies and just everyday life -- seem well-entrenched. But not too long ago, the same might have been said about drunk driving and smoking tobacco. Well-conceived and well-executed campaigns to educate the public can work. And child support agencies, as the frontline professionals who deal with the fallout of divorce and unmarried parentage, are particularly well positioned to assist in this endeavor.
By requiring states to put in place comprehensive child support programs, Congress has put teeth in the concept that becoming a parent and having children creates an irrevocable, nontransferable lien on the income and assets of each parent. Responsibility for financial support should not be transferred to the other parent or to the taxpayer except in extraordinary circumstances. Moreover, there will never be a good record on payment of current support unless states are also tough on collection of past-due support. Today’s current support unpaid becomes tomorrow’s arrears. Yesterday’s arrears, if not vigorously pursued, lead obligors to believe they can ignore today’s current support. When an obligor is permitted to accrue an arrearage with impunity, he or she has no incentive to comply with current support payments, and there is little to deter future noncompliance. For some, this is undoubtedly a tough stance. However, children need support on time and in full every week. And for those parents who do regularly make the necessary sacrifices to pay in full, it acknowledges their commitment by taking steps to ensure that all parents fulfill their financial responsibility to their children.
For the complete U.S. Constitution Click Here
The claim has been made that "The only debt you can be sent to jail for is child support becuase they have called it "not a debt" to get around the other laws. "
This is inaccurate because:
a) child support IS a debt like any other debts when it becomes due. There is nothing special about it and therefore, maybe dealt with like any other ordinary debt i.e. it is subject to the Fair Trade Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Consumer Credit Protection Act, and the protections of the Bankruptcy Code, etc, hence subject to discharge in bankruptcy.
and as they can not jail one for debt, they can not do so either for child support.
UNLESS, the debt (child support) was incurred through fraud which would make it criminal and an offence punishable by imprisonment.
In fact part of my Adversarial Proceeding argument on April 24 in Worcester, deals with this issue of child support being an ordinary debt.
Also see United States v. Bongiorno, 106 F.3d 1027, 1032 (1st Cir. 1997), it was held that "state-court-imposed child support orders are 'functionally equivalent to interstate contracts'", rejecting the idea that child support payment obligations are somehow a "different" kind of debt. Lewko at 68-69.
See also: U.S. v. Sage, 92 F.3d 101, 107 (2nd Cir. 1996)(child support is a commercial debt), and U.S. v. Parker, 108 F.3d 28, 30-31 (3rd Cir. 1997)(child support a common, commercial debt)(The activity regulated by the Act [Child Support Recovery Act] falls within the broad definition of commerce adopted in Bishop. Failure to make required payments gives rise to a "debt" which implicates economic activity).), U.S. v. Faasse, 265 F.3d 475 (6th Cir. Michigan 2001)(child support is a debt under the Commerce Clause).
2- Therefore, if they imprison one, by implication it indicates criminal contempt (as opposed to civil contempt that would be the domain of child support). And if it is criminal contempt, then one could invoke one's Constitutional right to remain silent and not respond.
AND, the court would have to appoint a lawyer for one, if they go the route of criminal contempt (imprisonment).