Still others fear that parents eager to modify their court orders will flood court dockets, only to be rebuffed because they do not qualify. The changes won’t actually affect most people until 2008, and then only if there are significant changes in financial circumstances. But there is wide agreement that it is time to prepare for change. Family law lawyers have been crowding into classes to learn about the intricacies of the new rules.
Hennepin County held an informational session last week to go over the new law. One Illinois company, Child Support Savings Co., offers a Lowering Child Support Manual (Minnesota edition) for $24.99 for people who believe they are “viewed as just a paycheck by your ex that is holding grudges against you.”
The most significant change reconfigures how child support is calculated. Previously, Minnesota was one of only 13 states that did not consider the income of both parents in determining child support. That has changed. Under the new law, child support will be based on the gross incomes of both parents and the amount of time each parent spends with the child.
Nationwide and in Minnesota, the move toward such changes has been generated by fathers’ rights and noncustodial parents groups who have long felt the system was set up against them. Some suggest it is an evolution away from traditional beliefs in the roles of mothers and fathers in raising a child.
“I don’t know if you can ever make a responsible parent by making a new law or a new order. But I think the law is going to be more accepted by a lot of people who felt they were getting an unfair shake,” said Maury Beaulier, a family law attorney with Hellmuth & Johnson who has done work in the past for the Father’s Rights Center and the Men’s Defense Association.
Relief, worry for poor parents
Once it may have been regarded as acceptable for noncustodial parents to shirk their responsibilities for child support, say those in the system, much in the same way that drunken driving once was considered a minor infraction. But child support obligations, like drunken driving, are now taken more seriously.
“It’s not, ‘Why should I pay the other parent anything?’ I think we’re kind of past that. We’re down to paying $50 more or $50 less for a lot of people,” said Jodie Metcalf, a child support magistrate in Minnesota’s court system, who has been conducting classes for family law lawyers on changes in the law.
One provision of the new law is expected to have a significant impact on low-income parents. It allows a noncustodial parent, usually the father, to have what has been called Self Support Reserve. The reserve permits the parent without custody who is earning at or below federal poverty levels to keep a base amount of money, usually around $950 a month.
Such a parent can be ordered to make a minimum payment of $50 a month or nothing at all. Impoverished parents are often the ones who have the most difficulty paying court orders and the idea is that limiting the payment might encourage greater participation.
“They were losing their driver’s license, ending up in prison. That wasn’t helping anyone,” said Paul Masiarchin, director of Minnesota Fathers and Families Network, a professional development and networking organization that focuses on how fathers can have a positive impact on the lives of their children.
Others are concerned that the support reserve will simply shift the costs of raising the child from both parents to the custodial parent, increasing chances of families falling into poverty.
“If that child support is not coming in from him, he still has his money, and the family is left without and left suffering,” said Jen Peterson, of the Minnesota chapter of the Association for Child Enforcement Support, which fought many of the new laws.
The new formula will take some time to play out, but legal advocates for poorer families say a preliminary test raises some flags for custodial parents. Noncustodial parents who make about the minimum wage are likely to have their child support payments considerably reduced. “Those orders are going to go down precipitously and those are the cases I’m most worried about. I think whether or not the outcome is going to be good for the kids, I’m concerned,” said Jayne Barnard McCoy, a staff attorney for the Legal Aid Society of Minneapolis.
Mark Brunswick • 651-222-1636 • mbrunswick@startribune.com
6 responses so far ↓
1 Kevin Merck // Dec 29, 2006 at 7:09 pm
{Once it may have been regarded as acceptable for noncustodial parents to shirk their responsibilities for child support, say those in the system, much in the same way that drunken driving once was considered a minor infraction. But child support obligations, like drunken driving, are now taken more seriously.}
I feel a rage building in me every time I read an irresponsible statement like this. For this tyrant to equate the refusal to cooperate with criminals, who are in clear violation of practically ever constitutional right we have, to the actions of a “drunk driver†is clearly a display of reckless disregard for our rights as Americans and human beings.
{“It’s not, ‘Why should I pay the other parent anything?’ I think we’re kind of past that. We’re down to paying $50 more or $50 less for a lot of people,†said Jodie Metcalf, a child support magistrate in Minnesota’s court system, who has been conducting classes for family law lawyers on changes in the law.}
Jodie Metcalf is kidding herself if she thinks we are past presumption of joint physical custody with each parent shouldering their own responsibility for supporting their children. The days of custodial mommies freeloading off of their ex-husbands and the welfare system are rapidly coming to an end. The days of forcing men to father a child they didn’t want are also coming to an end. If this criminal wants to stand in the way of our citizens being afforded the equal protection of our laws then she should pay the price for treason.
{One provision of the new law is expected to have a significant impact on low-income parents. It allows a noncustodial parent, usually the father, to have what has been called Self Support Reserve. The reserve permits the parent without custody who is earning at or below federal poverty levels to keep a base amount of money, usually around $950 a month.}
This statement shows the “audacity†of these criminals. For them to think that they are doing the person who makes less than starvation wages a huge favor for not extorting money from them, just demonstrates to what extent these people have lost touch with reality. Anyone making more than starvation wages is fair game as usual.
{Such a parent can be ordered to make a minimum payment of $50 a month or nothing at all. Impoverished parents are often the ones who have the most difficulty paying court orders and the idea is that limiting the payment might encourage greater participation.}
This callous statement makes me wonder if these criminals are even human. The message here is, “we can’t force someone in abject poverty to pay what we want them to, so we’ll settle for fifty bucks a monthâ€. How about helping this person be part of their children’s lives!? This just goes to show that all they care about is the collection of child support, nothing more.
{Others are concerned that the support reserve will simply shift the costs of raising the child from both parents to the custodial parent, increasing chances of families falling into poverty.}
This statement makes me wonder if these people have any common sense at all. One component of the family in this situation is already in abject poverty. How can it help anyone except the criminals getting matching federal dollars for the collection of child support to demand money from someone who is unable to pay?
{“If that child support is not coming in from him, he still has his money, and the family is left without and left suffering,†said Jen Peterson, of the Minnesota chapter of the Association for Child Enforcement Support, which fought many of the new laws.}
What she means to say is, “if he is allowed to keep his money in order to feed and cloth himself, then we in the child support racket will be left sufferingâ€.
Do the right thing people; find a way to stop giving these disgusting criminals your money.
Kevin Merck
2 Jim Deeny // Jan 3, 2007 at 10:22 am
It’s never going to change until the legalized extortion is stopped. Stop paying it, stop enabling this criminals to continue to destroy fathers and childrens lives living without fathers. It will never change until everyone, or the vast majority, stops paying, never.
3 Kevin Merck // Jan 8, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Minnesota is my home state and has been a bastion for Liberals and Democrats my entire life. The DFL (Democrat, Farmers and Labor Party) once had broad support among the most liberal minded people in the country. I was no different. I was raised on these principles and once considered myself a “Yellow Dog Democratâ€.
Minnesota is the only state that has voted Democrat in every presidential election all the way back to Eisenhower. In the last election however, the margin separating the two parties had shrunk to 4000 votes. All the Republicans needed were 4000 more votes in order to put Minnesota in the “red state columnâ€.
Non-custodial parents can easily deliver the state of Minnesota to Republicans in the 2008 presidential election. I think similar numbers may deliver other states to Republicans as well. I think a well organized effort could deliver a huge landslide to the Republican Party, if they have the foresight to act. Non-custodial parents will need the help of a major contender for power to bring an end to this injustice through the political process. The alternatives are very grim prospects.
Most divorces are sought after by women and the vast majority of these women vote Democrat. Fortunately for us, most of the men that have been stripped of their children or their right to the equal protection of our laws are also Democrats. Democrats tend to marry Democrats. If we can organize these men to vote Republican in order to be part of their children’s lives, and be treated equally in the eyes of the law, it will have a devastating effect Democrats, because it’ll be a vote lost for them, and one gained for Republicans, which is a double whammy.
{Once it may have been regarded as acceptable for noncustodial parents to shirk their responsibilities for child support, say those in the system, much in the same way that drunken driving once was considered a minor infraction. But child support obligations, like drunken driving, are now taken more seriously.}
This arrogant statement that equates the actions of a “drunk driver†to the actions of someone being “denied the equal protection of our laws†is proof positive that these criminals have lost all respect for our Constitution and our free way of life. It’s time to abruptly wean these parasites of the blood of our citizenry and take back our country.
Kevin Merck
4 Chris_L // Jan 25, 2007 at 3:22 pm
I agree, little will change unless Child support is no longer considered big business.
5 nikkijo // Feb 2, 2007 at 12:51 pm
It’s about time that custodial parents feel the hardship. Instead of collecting a completely tax free check every week.
FYI… this is coming from a female, who feels that child support should be abolished. If you can breathe you should work and not have someone else work for you. And if you can not support your child, have joint custody (shared economic responsibilities) or give custody to the other parent.
Here is my story of having to live in poverty for over 8 years now.
My husband was ordered 8 years ago to pay child support. He had never missed a payment until 5 years ago. Due to economic difficulties he fell behind but eventually got caught up and to this day is caught up. About 3 years ago Friend of the Court, in Michigan, issued a warrant to show cause that we never received. Just last week, the police pulled him over for an air freshener in his rear view mirror. His name came up for a warrant that he owed back child support. Because of that he was arrested and spent the night in jail (22 hours), and now he lost his job and will be unable to pay support. Glad that the court system works so well. The judge did not know why he was arrested and dismissed all charges. The judge apologized and hoped that he could keep his job. That is nice of him to do but that doesn’t get him his job back. My husband is unemployed now and will fall behind in support. But you know, the courts did their job by arresting him so they can look at their papers and see he is caught up. Our wonderful court system at work for people that fall behind on child support. Let’s lock them up and make them loose their job so the politicians can look good. “We just caught another deadbeat dad.” What has this done, leave my husband with a job, can not support his family that he has or his other child he is forced to pay support on, at almost $700 a month for one child. There needs to be something done with child support so that people can afford to live and make the Friend of the Court responsible for their figures in support and their lack of filing system. Friend of the court even said that it was their mistake and apologized for it. But where does that leave my husband, unemployed. He has gone down and filed for a review but we have been told that it probably won’t be lowered because he is “capable” of making that kind of money. Yeah, really capable after they forced him out of a job. But now he isn’t, since Friend of the Court failed to do their job and take the warrant off of his record he won’t be able to pay. There is not a decent Judge in Lenawee County. They are old and set in their ways. We need to vote someone in that’s mind is in the 21st century and not back in the 1800’s where women stayed home and men went to work.
6 kenrosebriar // Feb 20, 2007 at 5:03 pm
nikkijo:
The friends of the court in Michigan get paid with Social Security welfare funding for enforcing the very same child support orders that they recommend the creation of to the courts they work for.
Your husband was jailed on an error, and the FOC received funding for doing this.
Your husband needs to file a grievance against the Lenawee County Friend of the Court for this happening. He should also file a complaint with the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission against the judge for allowing this to happen without further investigating the facts first.
Get in touch with me via the e-mail address below and I can help you write these complaints effectively if you need it, or even write them for you. Do NOT let them get away with screwing up like this.
Just so you know, this type of situation has very little (if anything at all) to do with politicians grand-standing, and more to do with the funding that the state receives from the feds through Title IV-D of the Social Security Act.
It’s because nodody really knows how to hold them accountable that they are getting away with doing things like this.
Also: You wrote [He has gone down and filed for a review but we have been told that it probably won’t be lowered because he is “capable†of making that kind of money.]
Not sure if he’s had the review yet, but you can’t listen to anything that these people tell you guys (you should always get anything from them in writing). THERE ARE RULES FOR IMPUTING INCOME - AND THE FOC SELDOM FOLLOWS THEM. If you don’t know the rules, send me an e-mail and I will tell you them. DON’T LET THEM TAKE ADVANTAGE OF YOUR HUSBAND!
Ken Rosebriar
kenrosebriar@comcast.net
You must log in to post a comment.