In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status: 



	Rex Ballard - Director of Electronic Distribution
	http://cnj.digex.net/~rballard

> From: Knudsen, Mark (Contractor) 
> 
> Why does the court decide what the child support is and then give 100% of it 
> to the custodial parent???

In Colorado the income of BOTH parents (as reported on 1040 IRS tax 
forms) is totaled, the child support is determined based on that income 
(roughly 24% for an income of 10,000 and 20% for an income of $60,000 
with a sliding scale) and the total amount is apportioned based on actual 
or imputed income.

> Why does the non-custodial parents payments GO UP 
> more the more the custodial parent makes (even when the noncustodial's 
> salary stays the same)?????

The net effect of this formula is that if the CP won the lottery or 
in some other way had a sudden and dramatic increase in income, the MOST 
the support amount would be reduced by is 4%.  This keeps NCP from coming 
back for reductions.  Conversely, if the CP gets a 10% raise, his child 
support would go up by 9.5%.  This encourages the CP to keep coming back
for increases.

One effective tactic is to voluntarily overpay something like "Day Care" 
on the condition that the NCP forfeit the right to petition for 
increases.  It costs more initially (you'll be eating lots of "Beans and 
Rice" for a few years), but it can save you as much as $50,000 over the 
long run.

> Why is it that the noncustodial parent could be 
> a millionaire (versus a pauper) and this only makes the noncustodial parent 
> have to pay MORE childsupport????

The logic behind this is that "Children should be able to live in the 
manner in which they have become accustomed".  This is only a disguise 
for the original alimony settlements.  The concept is a fallacy - even if 
the NCP relinquished his entire after-tax earnings, the amount would 
still be substantially less, due to the effect of tax increases (filing 
status of "Single" versus "Married filing Jointly" or "Head of Houshold".

Even though the NCP still carries the full financial burdon of TWO 
housholds instead of one, he now has to pay taxes as if he were still a 
"swinging bachelor" with no financial obligations.

> Why does the noncustodial parent pay 100% 
> of ALL the childsupport to the custodial parent, pay for his (her) own child 
> care costs, and then pay double taxes on all of these monies (once for all 
> monies as earnings and once for paying the custodial parents income taxes 
> also)???

Child support isn't deductable by the NCP but it isn't part of the tax 
base for the CP either.  The old rule was "small child-support payment, 
large alimony".  This created two problems.  First, it meant that if a 
woman got married she would lose most of her income - placing a 
substantial burdon on the new husband.  As a result, you had a 
substantial number of young healthy divorced women who couldn't get 
remarried.  Worse, if she got married and the second one didn't work out, 
she could end up with no income and become dependent on the state.

The current policy is "large child-support, little or no alimony".  This 
not only keeps more women off the welfare roles, it encourages them to 
remarry.  It provides the added benefit (to the government) of being able 
to tax the child support at the highest rate instead of the lowest rate.  
If the NCP pays $12,000/year in alimony, the tax is less than $1000, 
which is paid by the CP.

If he pays $12,000 in child support, the tax on his (assumin cs=20% of income
of $60,000) would be $4560 federal, $840 state, and $600 for NYC employees. 
Total taxation rate on $12,000 would be $6000.  In addition, if the money is
sent to a state that charges sales tax on all purchases (such as Colorado),
there is an additional 7% property tax on the first 4200, and a 7% sales tax
on the remaining $8000.  The net tax goes up to a total of $6840.  If the
day-care is provided in-home, there is an addional 14% FICA tax on that
income (net of $672), For a total tax hit of as much as $7512 on a gross
payment of $18,000 ($12,000 sent to the wife, $6000 prepaid in income taxes). 
This is the net effect of a $1000/month child-support payment. 

> Then ontop of this, the laws mandate that the noncustodial parent 
> pay for the bulk of the custodial parent's DAYCARE, refusing to allow the 
> noncustodial parent to be given the right to provide daycare for his (her) 
> own child?????

Not only that, the woman isn't required to use a specific day-care.  She 
is entitled to the amount required to put them in a licensed day-care 
(about $400/month), but if she can find a boyfriend or husband who will 
do a "sitting for sex" trade, she can pretty much pocket all but a nominal 
($100/month) amount.

> Why are mother's rewarded by the legal system for getting a 
> divorce????? (And they wonder why divorce rates are going up!!!). This is 
> the way it is in the State of WA.

The logic is that mother isn't rewarded for getting divorced (the reality 
is that most women end up substantially penalized when compared to the 
income/lifestyle during the marriage).  The logic is that the children 
shouldn't have to suffer just because the parents can't stay married.

During the first 5 years, there is a period of "adjustment" for both 
parents.  The mother must find new ways of earning income or get 
married.  The father must find ways to survive on the minimal amount left 
after the child support and taxes.  Both often end up working "off the 
books" for barter or currency.  Both often go through emotional upheaval 
as well.  The parents - relatively healthy within the structure of the 
marriage, often turn to drugs, alcohol, sex, work, or volunteerism to 
fill the void of losing a once-loved partner and family.  During this 
"transition period", the child support can make a big difference.

Fortunately the current system encourages CPs to train, to complete 
high-school or college, to learn a trade, or to start a business.  Often, 
a CP can be fully capable of supporting the family in a manner of living 
that exceeds that at the time of the original marriage.  Many CPs receive 
lump sums from inheritances, insurance settlements, or home sales.  They 
can often use this money to either buy a house or purchase an annuity.
Relatives are often very compassionate toward single mothers.

Unfortunately, the Child Support system IS set up to be punitive toward 
the father.  In a majority of divorces (maybe only 51%) the husband 
actually deserves to go to jail.  He has been an alcholic, he has been 
sleeping around with prostitutes, he's been gambling with the rent money, 
or he's been violent and abusive toward the wife or kids.  The mother 
often finds "safe refuge" with some other "big-hearted-guy" who helps her 
through the transition period.

Unfortunately, short of putting a video camera in the bedroom and 
trotting out all of the complaints and family disturbance calls during 
the negotiations, it is impossible for the Judge to tell which fathers 
have been "raping their daughters" and which fathers have been "castrated 
by a scheming gold-digger".  The only thing he knows is that one of the 
parents wants out and the other has been coerced into submission.

> mj
>  ----------
> From: fathers
> To: fathers%soho.ios.com
> Subject: Fraud by DHHS and Elaine Sorensen!!
> Date: Tuesday, February 13, 1996 12:26AM
> 
>  ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 18:39:03 -0500 (est)
> From: Seeking Equality for All 
> 
> Why should the (do called) child-suport orders be based on
> 'ability to pay', what is more properly called extorsion ?

The whole notion of ability to pay - perpetrated out over a 20 year 
period based on a voided contract, is absurd in the first place.  The 
father may have been very committed to his wife and children, based on 
the assumption that they would be together for life (or at least until 
the baby graduates from college).

Marriage is the only contract where you can be forced to let a stranger 
live in your house while you pay the mortgage, and forfiet the equity.
The entire Uniform Commercial Code is based on a premise of enforcing 
contracts based on agreements and benefits.  If I decide I don't want to 
keep making car payments, I can either sell the car or let the bank 
reposess it.  I don't get to just stop making payments and continue 
driving the car.  If I work for an employer, I have to provide a certain 
service with a certain value.  I can't just decide to "stay home, sleep 
in, and collect the checks".

In a marriage, a woman can contract for a position in the household 
(marriage is a contract).  She can unilaterally alter that contract with 
impunity, and once she has children, she can unilaterally revoke her 
obligations to the father while retaining the rights to the benefits of 
the marriage.

The legal basis for this is the perpetration of great HOAX, the MYTH that the
children belong to the mother but that the father is primarily responsible
for their well-being.  This myth is the cornerstone upon which the HOAX is
perpetrated.  The father as absolutely no RIGHTS to the children.  There is
no trial, no prosecution, no right to call witnesses, no public defender, on
attorney provided by the insurance company, not even the right to know the
exact nature of the charges against him.

The court simply expects him to surrender all of the privelidges of the
marriage and to pay punitive child-support.  He is given permission (not a
right) to visit "the children" (not his children) on a periodic basis.  The
permission is provisional, is subject to the convenience and wishes of the
mother.  Visitation is not a right, it is a priviledge granted by the court. 

Most fathers negotiate a settlement prior to the hearing.  It is the most 
effective way to minimize the damages.  It is, however, a contract 
negotiated "at gunpoint".  The attorney for the father knows that the law 
will go against him in court.  The attorney for the mother knows that the 
court will judge based on the laws which permit her to void ALL of her 
obligations to him and require him to honor ALL of his obligations to his 
children and to her as the mother of his children.

> ABILITY TO PAY should not arise until after the complete fair
> impartial and unbiased assessment of both parents "ABILTY TO PARENT".
> Assuming that it is legal to violate a persons INALIENABLE RIGHTS, that
> is.

The ABILITY TO PAY should be used as a basis for reducing amounts below 
the amount that would have been paid under similar entitlement programs.  
Most states are only willing to support a single mother for the first 5 
years.  The days of "cradle to college welfare" ended with Ronald Reagan.
Why should the NCP Father be expected to support a woman at 2-4 times 
what the state would pay, simply because he has the ability to pay?  Why 
should he be expected to make payments to a woman who as already 
defrauded him 3 times already - (once for the marriage, once for the 
child, once for the divorce) for 20 years?

Our entire legal system is based on the fundamental concept that a person is
responsible for the consequences of his or her actions.  The man commits to
being a father based on the promise, from his wife, that she will be his
partner for life, a contract declared in the presence of no less than 3
witnesses during the wedding, and formally recorded by the signed 
marriage license.  The courts then determine, based upon no evidence 
whatsoever, that the father must be fully responsible for the 
consequences of the marriage.

The paradox is, that only a responsible man - one who was actually 
responsible during the marriage - would even be willing to honor such a 
contract and court order.  The irresponsible man would simply do 
everything within his power to avoid the court order.  The irresponsible 
man will eventually end up in prison for a life-style of 
irresponsibility.  At that point, how would the court extract the child 
support?

The irony is that the responsible man will assume responsibility for the 
entire marriage, and it's failure.  He will do what is necessary to make 
sure that his wife and children do not suffer any more than they have to 
during their time of intense need.  He will go to extraordinary lengths 
to provide what is most needed, when it is most needed.  He doesn't need 
a court order to force him to honor that commitment.  When the family is 
secure and capable of supporting itself, either because the mother is now 
fully employed or married, the responsible man will cease his payments 
since they are no longer needed.

The courts will treat the responsible man like the irresponsible man.  
When the responsible man appears in the courtroom, the Judge, assuming 
that the father is in the court-room for his irresponsible behavior, will 
treat the responsible man like a common criminal.  The judge will assume 
that the man is a violent, abusive, sodomite and rapist.  He has no 
choice.  The "No-Fault" laws forbid him to explore any further.  He can't 
even preview prior convictions of either parent before making his 
decision.

The Judge cannot give custody to the father unless the father is willing 
to - at his own expense - prove beyond a doubt - that the mother is unfit 
to be a mother.  The father is only allowed to base is case on actual 
damages to the children or actual charges against the mother.  Even then, 
there is no guarantee that he will get custody.  The judge may award 
custody to her parents, his parents, or a foster-home.  He must also 
prove that he is fit to be a father.  If the mother's attourney is able 
to make a case for neglect based on the father's extended work hours (a 
luxury that is only possible become mom was taking care of the kids and 
making his home-life a living hell), he could lose custody anyway.  A 
very spiteful woman won't think twice about testifying against her 
husband if he actually succeeds in proving her unfit.

> As there is usually biase partiality and discrimination, in most cases,
> the presumptions and payments are done under threat duress and coercion.
> Note: this is done in fear of the color-of-law otherwise known as TYRANNY.

From the context of divorce.  Marriage becomes an exercise in fraud, 
blackmail, extortion, and kidnapping.

Often, the real victim of the marriage is the NCP.  Even when the mother 
forfeits custody, it is because her husband has harrassed her and coerced 
her into actions for which she now feels guilty.  Many women become 
alcholics because their already-low self-esteem is attacked by her 
verbally abusive husband.  No sane, responsible parent voluntarily gives 
custody of their children to another unless their is some intense 
manipulation.

> WHEN THE COURT ALLOWS OR AIDS IN THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS OF
> CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, their actions are not proper.

The only way a law can be voided as unconstitutional is by an order of 
the Supreme Court of the United States of America.  Before it can get to 
the Supreme Court it must be appealed by both parties through municipal, 
state, and federal appellate courts.  This costs over one million dollars 
just for the filing fees.  How many NCPs have enough left after paying 
child-support to actually mount that defense.

If everyone in the "Million Man March" gave $10/month for the processing 
of a few potential landmark cases, we could probably have these laws 
nullified.

> Seeking Justice FOr ALL
> [EXACTLY CORRECT!!!]
> 
> 

From rballard@cnj.digex.net Mon Feb 19 13:51:58 1996