Child-support bill would treat fathers more fairly – Concord Monitor Online – Concord, NH 03301
March 6, 2006
|
Posted by ANCPR
Child-support bill would treat fathers more fairly – Concord Monitor Online – Concord, NH 03301
By PAUL M. CLEMENTS
For the Monitor
March 04. 2006 8:00AM
Â
It’s really hard to believe that the child support bill you wrote about (“Child-support bill prompts outcry,” March 1) could harm children. That’s just more feminist hyperbole.Â
If Dad gets a break from the impoverishing child support most dads are ordered to pay, then he’d have more money to provide a nicer home for the children when it’s his turn to be the custodial parent. He would be better able to provide for toys, games, books, educational outings and sports.
“Opponents say the bill could provide the wrong motivation for divorcing parents when negotiating time with their children,” you reported. Since when do parents negotiate parenting time? The judge/marital master gives custody to the mother in 75 percent of cases, and Dad gets two weekends a month “visitation.” No negotiation!
The biggest mistake in this article was to say that Dad has to pay 25 percent of his “net” income. The truth is, child support is based on “gross”income, before taxes and Social Security are deducted. The effect on the net, or take-home, pay, is more like 45 percent.
To add insult to injury, Mom is given a $20,000 disregard of income when determining the percentage of total income. Dad gets not one cent for his personal subsistence. With several children, a dad is likely to be made homeless by the severity of the child support levy.
Certainly, the courts have the authority to break from the guidelines under “special circumstances,” but they never do. Because the federal government pays the states for collecting child support, the courts and the collection agency team up to maximize the take.
Another error was the allusion to HB 640, saying that it “requires” parents to cooperate in the formulation of parenting plans. Not so! The mother is given the domestic violence loophole. She can avoid both mediation and cooperative parenting plans by accusing the poor dad of some form of abuse. Or simply say she’s “afraid.”The case then goes to the judge, who is guaranteed to rule in the mother’s favor.
Rep. Carolyn Gargasz is quoted as saying, “I think we need to not be so impatient.” Fathers, who are most often by far the noncustodial parent, have been waiting over 20 years for some kind of relief from the status quo of sole mother custody and the onerous support payments that accompany that decision.
Joining Gargasz in her criticism of the bill was the New Hampshire Bar Association. Of course they oppose the bill. Lawyers make their money from litigating conflicts. If the system were fair, their incomes would suffer.
Honey Hastings, a member of that bar association, apparently thinks fairness is a bad thing, but she wants us to think it’s bad for the kids, not the lawyers. How can she possibly see a move toward fairness as creating more litigation and hostility? Unless she’s talking about the greedy mothers who would fight to maintain the gravy train.
(Paul M. Clements of Concord is president of Dads Against Divorce Discrimination-New Hampshire.)
Â
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments
Categories: News
|
Leave a reply
Spending your money on lawyers is part of their “game plan†and you’re a fool if you waste your money that way. Very few people realize this until they’ve spent a boatload of money on them.
The fewer dollars people waste on this vermin, the less opposition their will be to change. The vast majority of lawyers care about one thing only and it’s not the “best interests of childrenâ€.
So true. Law whoring scum will take your money, but only represent their bank accounts, their pimps, and the extortion gangs etc., and they do this with impunity. So save your money and do what you can do yourself. Your playing against a stacked deck, and there’s not much difference between can’t and won’t. I suspect their pimps might be less likely to rule against you, if there isn’t one of their whores to placate you.
I could’nt agree more with regard to feeding the system, I won’t do it. But I am also one of those litigants that took years to get up to speed with what had been done by the family court. I was legitamatley without the funds needed to preserve my rights and now find the struggle even harder having lost those rights. Having had appointment of legal counsel under a least a dozen alleged criminal complaints by my X I hold certain appeal to having a good lawyer on board. But it works both ways – I have seen and heard from some of the worst lawyers too. It’s a balancing act with me-wanting to respond, knowing right and wrong and not wanting to come across as a crazed person. Personally, I’m due to respond- and soon.
SPEAKING WITH EXPERIENCE
RESPONDING TO “CHILD-SUPPORT PROPOSAL FACING CRITICISMâ€
How ironic it was to read the column in the Keene Sentinel, “New child-support proposal facing a barrage of criticismâ€. The irony comes from my current battle with parental time and support that has been ongoing for eight years. After reading the piece I wondered how I could voice my experience in a way that would effectively enlighten those opposed to changing how parental time and support is determined. I’m a firm advocate for fathering and being an equal part of my children’s lives. “Equal†isn’t a familiar term within the custody/support system, and it wouldn’t be far fetched to say that the system isn’t “father friendly†when it comes to such topics. I speak with experience, as I attempt to co-parent with my ex-wife and two children now ages ten and seven.
There are numerous holes in the current system that requires change in effort to encourage positive and effective (equal) co-parenting. To name those that I have struggled with as a father would include parenting time/custody, child support, co-parenting and finally the struggle to keep my children from emotional, mental and physical harm. One would think that a father could keep his children from all harm… I have tried and failed because the system failed me from doing so, in my opinion because I was competing against their mother. This may be another topic, however it all ties together effecting the children directly and indirectly
Children are not property; they are fast developing humans who require much more than financial support. All too often in the chaos of parental time and child support, the children are being forgotten, their needs and desires placed behind those of their parent(s) and the judicial system.
The current laws and requirements advise that divorced parents follow a systematic plan to ensure strict financial obligation and visitation guidelines. Yes, financial responsibility is important, but not at the expense of the children. Parenting time is the most important for children, as they struggle enough seeing their parents divorced.
Child support is calculated based on income from both parents, or at least that has been my experience. This I don’t understand. Child support is supposed to be for the children right? If so, then why am I being brought to court for being financially stable, and an equal part of my children’s lives? Money isn’t something that should motivate a parent to use their children. Often-times a parent can become greedy and use the current child support guidelines to pocket money that is beyond their children’s expenses, all while overlooking the best interests of the children and the effectiveness of co-parenting.
What I know of the “Parental Rights and Responsibility Act†suggests that it’s geared towards helping the sensitive financial topic; however its offering will continue to create a “recipe for disaster†just as staff attorney Breckie Hayes-Snow commented on in the article. The current and proposed support guidelines lack the children’s expenses, which is what child-support is for. Calculating child support based on income resembles paying alimony, and that is different all together. Again, children are not property. None of this she/he pays them on her/his days. When did supporting the children separately and individually lose fashion? Did it ever exist and who says it shouldn’t? This of’ course would only work if both parents were involved, and it’s likely that more parents would be involved if this was enacted. It’s all about equal rights and responsibility, despite a parents income or lifestyle. To be penalized for a chosen lifestyle and then compared to others is unjust.
I shake my head, questioning why I bother to fight it, and why I bother trying to understand it, but still wanting to change it. Are the children being remembered in all of this mess? I seem to be the only one who does, but no one will listen.
Rep Carolyn Gargasz insists that “we need to not be so impatient†and in part I agree. If changes are going to be made they need be thought upon and decided to ensure for a positive, effective change. On the other hand, changes need to be made and taking too much time will delay all chances. I want to be involved and all readers who are just as frustrated should also have the chance to be involved with changes, as we are those who experience it.
With support of my wife, also an advocate for change
Sincerely,
Craig Ells
I hope, you will find the correct decision. Do not despair.
I’m from Australia and apparently a father has to pay 18% of his GROSS wage which the tax he has to pay is ALSO on his GROSS pay, so by the time all of these “gross” payments are taken, that leaves f’ all.
Now if the father, cheated and left, well then what does he deserve, but what about if he really wanted the family, treasured the family and it was the mother who was cheating and chose to go with the (on the side) lover? This poor guy would no longer have the financial ability to start over again with another loving woman as the majority of his pay would go to the first bi-atch who cheated on and left him. So if he did want to start over again, the new families lifestyle would probably be in a trailer park!…..Anyway, i’m probably digressing here, but it does work me up!