In a natural disaster like Northridge Earthquake, my child support was based on much overtime. I worked over 110 hours a week. How could it ever be fair to rate child support based on such overtime? The court tried to force me to continue to work at such level, for I would never see my family regularly again.


We need to stop that.


We need to cast a vote to limit the amount of income considered to calculate child support to that only of a 40 hour work week or less.

bjh:
Are you from Georgia? GA will include not only your overtime, but commissions, one-time bonuses, inheritance, I have even seen child support computed on the father winning a one-time photo contest...the judge said, "hey, if you have done it once, you can do it again!".
Also, in Georgia and among many other states, if you lose your job through no fault of your own, too bad. You can't return to court to have your child support modified unless it has been two years since your last modification. Plus, if you are in a percent of obligor only state where you pay a flat percentage off of your gross income, you're probably paying close to 40% of your take home pay.
The child support system doesn't calculate the fact that you must pay taxes which are involuntary...
Face it, our child support system encourages and creates deadbeats.

40%? That easier than the 30% I take home. State wants 50% to CS, 20% to taxes(state+fed), which leaves 30% leftover.

For those who only work min wage... that like an income of only 2 to 3 dollars an hour!!!!

I completely agree, when my husbands childsupport was decided, it was based on 60 hours a week, 20 of which was overtime. Then he also had to pay 32% of his bonuses regardless of amount and 32% of his perdiam(sp?). Which ended up being a whopping 1200 a month just in hourly based support alone. What really hurt was when he was laid off last year in Dec, he could not get his childsupport lowered until april and had to hire a lawyer (which we really couldnt afford) to get it done. So we basically emptied every account we had to just pay support. We were living on basic neccesities and eating food my huband had hunted just to get by while his ex was racking in 1200 a month on 2 kids. Our income at the time was unemployment of a mere 275.00 a week.

This is in Tennessee so im not sure what other states do on this issue, but the childsupport system is a big cause of dead-beat dads here in Tennessee. My husband has never missed a payment, and has never been late on a payment. But if he hadnt had a retirement account he also would of been a considered a dead-beat dad, we were just lucky we could draw his retirement out even though that also cost us, we had to give up 10% of it, to be able to withdraw it early.

Fight for your right to see your kids 50% of their time and you likely will not have to pay support. If she has moved your kids out of state move to where ever she lives. Or fight to have your kids six months out of the year. You can not put a price tag on the value of your time spent with your kids that you are losing. In my view, if it were me, NOTHING would stop me from seeing my kids 50% of their time. They are half mine and I expect to see them half the time. If I were you I would fight to see my kids. Move out of state if I had to. At the price you are paying in support you could buy another home where your other kids live, spend 6 months out of the year there and then six months where you live now to be with your other child. If you have supervised visitation with the other kids.....go and be supervised for a while, you never know maybe the judge will see this as that you love your kids and are willing to do anything just to see them. Then, maybe the judge would allow you to see your kids unsupervised. Best way to do supervised visits is at a child protection agency where you are monitored with your kids, this will allow you to have someone at the agency to testify that you are a good father and that the mothers accusations were unwarrented.

How about how fast the court will respond to cries about money vs how fast they respond about visiting rights or other abuses of the kids?

Family Courts from my experience, through my brother, do not work. The decisions the court came up with were not like a parents...... which is what is needed.... an impartial parent acting on the behalf of the children...... not law and precedent. The court does not have the time to do this, but I wasn't aware of how little intelligence they put in on the financial side.

I unserstand why the courts move faster on the financial needs of the child, they have to be feed and have a place to live first and then all of the other details can be worked out later about the childs time. I agree that our family courts need to work faster and that they need to look out for the child like a good parent would. Its sad that in some cases they don't.

My husband has joint custody of his kids, and his ex has denied him access to his kids several times, the court would not let him have %50 of the time with him, they said it was harmful for the children to have to move every 6 months. So he basically ended up with joint custody with no more rights then someone who just has visitation. His ex only lives 35 minutes away across tn line into arkansas and still he could not get his kids joint time. He has joint and begged for %50 of the time and he still did not get it, and still pays full childsupport.

That is so awful. Fathers need to get together on this and write letters to their congressmen on this topic. A judge should not have the right to take their children away from them without a dang good reason. If the shoe was on the other foot and it was women going thru this they would not stand for it. They would get together and picket the white house and do whatever else it took to be able to see their children. Fathers need to do the same and make their voices be heard. They not only have the right to see their children 50% of the time they also have a responsibility to their children to do so. Its just not right for a judge to do such things.

I think that is the point, judges do it all the time, and good fathers voices are not being heard. The laws are unfair on both sides of the fence. My husbands fight for custody with his ex ran him up over 7,000 for legal fee's, and he still lost. What happens in a large amount of cases and in my husbands is the mother uses the childsupport to pay for her case, the father gets financially drained trying to fight for his kids while he is ordered to temporarily pay support, until he no longer has any money left to fight with. And the judge rules in favor of the mother with the bias because the father stopped fighting he didnt want his kids.

Cases are being decided every day this same way.

Do you know of any organizations or cases where fathers are fighting to share physical custody of their kids at a higher level than a judge in family court?

I think all child support should be based on 33% or 1/3 of net income excluding

savings, pensions, 401k etc. 1/3 of after tax money. Fathers have to live, pay rent

buy food etc... Making them so miserable would make anyone nuts.

Yes, there is a class action law suit in I believe it is 46 states.

Done many times.

I got a response back and signed by Al Gore that the he noted my concern about the child support system. He or whomever really wrote the paper stated the greater concern is the 30-something billions of dollars of owed child support (in 1998). I'd imagine that such figure looks like actions needed to be taken until you really think about it. Child support is not based on actual income. It is based on "ability to pay," which is a made up figure by the judge or commissioner by what they think the payee can pay on a continual bases. If it were based on actual income, child support would vary as actual income increases or declines as it normally does. Do you understand the end result? That 30-something billion dollar figure is "made up."

jolene, do you want to sign a petition?

By the way, Clinton is still one of the best presidents I have ever seen, and many democrats and republicans agree.

If that percentage was recalculated every month automatically, you have a great idea.


One thing to also remember is education. The laws in California state that "maintenance and education" is required of both parents upon the children. It doesn't say "or" between those two words. We see so many times that the child support agency focuses only on "maintenance" and not "education."

Is the child support agency part of the plan to dumb down our children?

No doubt, BC is loved by many. However the 1996 Welfare Reform Act was passed on his watch. Your beloved Clinton formalized the slavery of fathers.

History will show that his adulterous ways pales in comparison to the systematic separation of children from their fathers enacted during his administration. I voted for him twice, but that is something that will never be forgiven. Lots of presidents were adulterous, but none gave tens of millions of kids the shaft the way Clinton did. This is the Great American Tragedy of Our Times.

The Clinton legacy to millions of kids is quite literally, Who's Your Daddy?

Better than what the streets look like in Iraq where kids are saying, Who's this Body?

I've been on record at this site saying that Bush is a moron. You're not going to get an arument from me there. But, the bar has to be set a little bit higher than that. Even so, more American kids are dying from their systemic separation from fathers than are American soldiers in Iraq. But, let's not get into a match of how low we can set expectations.

This one's a little sticky, but i'll try to handle it.

Joint physical and legal custody should involve parents that maintain a residence in the same town. The children should not have to change schools or spend summer away from their friends. I say that when you decided to have a kid, you give up certain rights in deference to what's good for the kid. As a child that lived in many homes, and went to many schools, I would have had an easier childhood growing up in one place. It's more difficult to learn how to make and maintain relationships when a kid moves a lot. They're always the outsider. Now add to that the fact that their life will go through another serious change and not get to see one of the parents.

Perhaps your husband's joint custody gives him equal legal say in his children's life? Many non custodial parents don't have that much. I heard of a case where a man got into trouble for taking his child to his church, which was not of the mother's affiliation. Judge said it might confuse the kid. Same as that guy that went to the Supreme court over his daughter saying the pledge. He had no LEGAL rights to say how his daughter lived. Buncha BS,

I spent eight years in family court, trying to get money for damn diapers. By the time I did, my kid didn't need 'em, but one of my parents did.
'

This subject is risking "heated" moments between both sides of the fencer's. I'm one of them. Finally, after years of nothing recieved, I was awarded almost 50 grand in back support. The father finally had a job that earned decent money, and this repayment would've caused him to live in poverty, and probably would've ruined his life... well jeepers, that would be GREAT for my child/his child now, wouldn't it. NOT. Couldn't afford a nice place to live and have his son over, or go fishing or vacations... so, as a good Mom does for the love of her son? I dropped the whole damn thing, and didn't accept the money. I stated to the judge, my reasons (above).. judge told my ex if he ever sees him pull crap with me, he'll not understand what happens to him next. LOL...

Think it helped? Five years later, he is a cheap, mean man who tells me to "take him to court" if I want 1/2 of deductibles for surgery, orthodontists, etc. really sickening.

Lose/lose with a loser. If this man sued for 25% of time with his child, they'd do it over my dead body. What kind of a man gets awarded back fifty grand in childsupport and then still lives in a lousy town in his own room with his mom and dad... NO FREAKIN LIFE... and then... fights to pay freakin' doctor co-pays at 12.5/a visit? OMG... What a bad role model for my son. The less exposure to this poisoning, the better.

Ughhhhhhhhhh okay all better now...rant done. You may proceed to chew me out.

Funny thing is, I'm not going to chew you out for anything. Nor, do I think you oppose most anything that has been stated in this thread. Here are the two major factors that we are asking to be made law:

1) In the absence of wrongdoing that both parents be allowed to share a meaningful amount of time with their kid(s).

2) That both parents share the financial obligations for their child(ren), regardless of which home the child happpens to be at any given time.

As applied to the situation you described, it sounds like the father is not trying to spend the time he has been granted. Like I said, both parents need to be given the opportunity to be a meaningful part of their kids' lives. A court can not force that to happen. I am not sure what expenses are at his home, since I am not sure how much the kids are there.

I don't necessarily think that forgiving the full amount of $50,000 was best. But, I do know that CS is not based on the needs of children. Therefore, it is very doubtful that you should have been reimbursed $50,000 for their expenses by their father. More information about the particulars of your situation is required to make that kind of judgment. Regardless, this forum shouldn't be about holding you to account - that is best left to a court. The purpose of this fourm is to debate the paramaters in which courts make their decisions.

It be nice if this forum enables a proactive democracy. In which, the members of congress, both state and federal, all participate for real live feedback. I would get off topic if I got into details.

I still don't understand why their are so many whom have continued to find fault where one parent or the other parent doesn't see the children. Some parents simply have chosen not to be with their kids. Most parents would love to be with their kids. The parents that would love to be with their kids are the ones that we should help be with their kids.

A limit on how much the amount of child support is taken is needed. Both parents need to be held responsible, as the laws already state. It needs to be enforced and corrected retroactively.

In Iraq
more than 300,000 have died
where is that bar set when the kids ask, where is my daddy?

in death
there is an end

In American
millions of families are seperated, custody awarded to mothers 80% of time
where is that bar set when the kids ask, where is my daddy?

where there is no death
there is no end

I do not know from when you are talking about with the 300,000. But, it is just slightly over 1,000 American soldiers for the whole time since we invaded. In contrast, in the year 1993 over 1,500 kids were murdered. Of those, 14 were in father only households, 476 were in mother only households, 1,170 were killed by females, 330 by males, 300 by non-natural parents, 1,200 by natural parents.

The numbers of deaths between American children separated from their dads and the number of American soldiers in over a year of fighting are comparable. The difference is that those soldiers signed up for possible death, those children did not. Just think if we had put hundreds of billions into those children being allowed meaningful time with their dads, as well as their moms.

1,000 American solders... I also included the Iraqi families in the death toll. American on not, we all live on the same Earth.

Just reading these posts about child support and the gentleman that was paying $1200. per month ..Its certainly would not cost 1200 per month to support that child if the couple was still married..The court has a retirement system set up for the custodial paarent unless of course it happens to be the husband..Unfair system but it will never change becasue it has now gone too far and there is no turning back. The judges are the ones that do not interpert the law correctly but it would be astronomical for one to appeal a judges decsion..

I remember it costed only $200 a month for my child. That is not including all the fancy clothes and latest designer wear for the child. That includes the normal diapers, food, medical, clothes, extra travel, carriage items, etc. When I had the second child, we already were set and it didn't cost much more. What costs the most is all the lastest fashions for kids, which are not really needed.

I can see your point, but your assuming my husband moved, he and his ex both lived in memphis at the time of his divorce, then after the divorce his ex moved to arkansas, so why should my husband be punished because his ex moved. If she was moving to provide better support for the children I could understand better but after 5 years she still does not work. The only reason she moved was to be closer to her mother. So again why should my husband who is a great father have to be the one to make the sacrifices?

Also I was also a child that moved alot actually over 15 times from kindergarted to 12th grade, I changed schools more then most people can imagine, from alaska to germany and many more places, and if I had my way my children would have that same experience, it didnt cause me to feel like a outsider if anything it gave me the mentality that I can fit in with any group regardless of where im at, also it gave me the ability to see the world from many different points of view and learnt me that there was a world outside my little hometown im originally from. It also enhanced my education, because instead of just going to one local school most of my life I got to experience many different levels and types of education, my own children have changed schools over 4 times in thier lives, my oldest is in 8th. She is in honors class's something her old school didnt have but her new one does. Sometimes changing schools can give a child benefits it cant recieve when staying at one school lifetime and there is nothing wrong with making 100's of new friends instead of just a few, I still have contact with several friends I have made over the years.

Im not going to chew you out either, im one of those people who live both sides of the fences, Im a mother of 2 who's dad will not pay his support, and I havent ever taken him to court on backsupport, he owes over 20,000 right now. But Im also a wife to a man who pays his support religiously and has less rights then my ex has. I just got through trying to make a deal with my ex, my ex wants his kids this christmas in the morning, i have full custody and have every right according to our divorce papers to deny him that, but im not going to, so I talked to him yesterday, told him if he wanted the girls that was fine, but I wanted him to buy thier christmas this year instead of giving them the normal 50.00 he normally gives them. I also told him he could just forget about any amount of support he was suppose to pay during november and December (which he never pays anyway) Anyway... he quickly changed his tune, he apparently considers how much he would have to spend for christmas more important then having his kids christmas. There are fathers on both sides of the fence, its sad to see someone like my husband who would give everything to have his daughter christmas morning being punished for someone like my ex who considers money more important then seeing his children.

I think you hit the nail right smack on the head with how it enhanced your education. The reason for public schools is for children to be involved with the public large. Public schools are better than private schools for that reason alone. Private schools may attest to great grades in specialized courses, but those specialized courses do not help the children with the public large later in life.