Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
Hyerdahl wrote:
Col. Tuttle USAF NI wrote:
"Werebat" wrote in message
news:V%kIg.2199$Zm1.1201@dukeread02...
Hyerdahl wrote:
Meldon Fens wrote:
In their current form, Child Support laws are driving fathers into
poverty.
Non-custodial parents, primarily fathers, become unable to see their
kids
and the kids lose the child support they are entitled to. At the very
least,
low income fathers should be given some priority for government funding
and
for employment.
[Fathers are, and should be, obligated to support their children. And
govt. funding tends
to go TO children who are not being supported by fathers. ]
Here are the simple economics of child support and how economic
oppression
ruins fathers' lives and any chance at normalcy.
Let's take an average person earning $30K per year.
Child Support is based on pre-tax income. At this level and in most
countries, he will be required to pay between $250 and $300 per month
per
child, equivalent to between $3000 and $3600 per year. He is taxed in
most
countries at approximately %20 equivalent to $6000 (a conservative
estimate). As a result he will take home slightly more than $20,000.
Should he find himself in arrears with Child Support, he must pay up to
but
no more than half of his gross income. In this example the equivalent of
$15,000 per year. He is left with $5000 per year with which to live,
including paying for a vehicle to see his kids.
[A father who isn't living with his kids certainly has more free time
than a mother who is doing the child care. Such a father could even
get a part time job or educate himself to get better paid work.
Trying to blame arrearages on his children is not the answer here.]
Child Support laws require that any reduction in child support must show
three criteria for actual hardship one being that the Child Support is
causing the hardship. To do so, he needs to make an application to court
which takes a considerable amount of financial resources. In fact, any
application to court which is not self-represented will be next to
financially impossible including defence of false allegations of
domestic
abuse or anything else the "mother" can think of to drive him into
abject
poverty.
[Oh 'puleeeeeeze'; no one is going to buy THAT sob story. Pay your
child support and be done with it. The court is there to assess both
income and hardships, and it isn't likely to change.]
Most fathers do anything they can to continue paying child support and
to
see their kids. Most would not argue that they should be contributing
financially toward their kids but there is no help available for these
low
income fathers. Something must be done for low income fathers facing
debtor's prison and losing contact with their kids. It is after all with
few
exceptions, in the child's best interest to continue to see their
fathers
but government and advocacy groups do nothing for low income fathers,
ignoring the best interests of the chidren.
Actually, the child's "best interests" are determined on a case by case
basis and sometimes it is NOT in a child's "best interests" to see
their fathers. Fathers who are abusive or negligent are certainly in
that category. Govts. only have so much money for social services
and children will get that money long before fathers do.
Hyerdahl, what is your family court and CSE experience? I believe I
have told you mine and you never comment on it; I suspect you'd like to
sweep the real stories of government abuse of fathers under the carpet,
at best giving them a dimissive nod and a comment like, "well, sure,
every system has it's occasional problems..."
People like him like to remain willfuly ignorant on these issues.....their
scum!
Yes I know. He claims to have used his credentials to somehow
self-aggrandize his position when the facts are good enough for you and
me. Thank you for your wonderful contributions.
Oh, I get it. You're a word weasel.
OK, 'nuff said.
- Ron ^*^
|