Non-custodial parents networking together to make a difference!
February 27, 2007
Iowa Child Support Advisory Committee
400 SW 8th Street, Suite H
Des Moines, IA 50309-4633
Dear Iowa Child Support Advisory Committee,
I am writing you regarding several concerns that I have with Iowa¡¯s current child support guidelines and enforcement policies. In years past, your committee has completely ignored the recommendations made by citizens to create a fair child support system. I¡¯m hopeful your committee will no longer ignore recommendations to improve an inequitable child support system.
Iowa utilizes the ¡°percentage of income formula,¡± which determines the amount of child support as a percentage of the income of the non-custodial parent obligated to pay the child support (see page 2). The current guidelines are specifically calculated using a custodial parent and a non-custodial parent field. This percentage is determined by factoring the number of children requiring support. The guidelines formula factors in the custodial parent¡¯s income but this income has little relevance to the calculations in most circumstances. The current guidelines allows for only minor deductions for other children on behalf of the non-custodial parent. The current guidelines assume the custodial parent has 100% of all child expenses and does not factor in any expenses incurred on behalf of the non-custodial parent while children are under their care and supervision.
This ¡°percentage of income formula¡± is neither accurate regarding what it actually takes to raise a child nor equitable towards the non-custodial parents financial responsibilities. This method makes the Iowa¡¯s child support guidelines income driven; especially when the formula includes non-guaranteed income from more then a forty (40) hour work week. It is an almost impossible task for obligors to have their child support lowered in the event of employment changes or problems, forcing the non-custodial parent into an arrears situation. The current child support system has created a slavery system for all non-custodial parents that awards them with debtors prison should they become unable to financially comply with the child support obligation.
Iowa should revise its child support guidelines based upon the actual cost of raising a child, similar to the guidelines used by welfare. If the guidelines established by the State of Iowa are acceptable for individuals applying for welfare services, then they are acceptable to apply in all child support proceedings. Upon establishing the actual cost of raising a child, policy changes shall dictate that the child support cost will be equally shared among the parents without exception. For example; Iowa determines that it costs $500 a month to raise a child, both parents are responsible for making $250 monthly payments to the CSRU, who in turn would distribute the $500 child support payment to the parent with physical placement. In cases of a joint physical care arrangement, CSRU should adopt rules requiring no child support since both parents have equal parenting time and expenses for the child. These changes will simplify child support enforcement policies and prevent unnecessary litigation as created by the current child support guidelines through their review process. Considering the State of Iowa likes to use the terminology, ¡°Best interest of the child,¡± few could argue that reduced litigation over child support obligations would not be in the best interest of the child.
Iowa¡¯s current child support guidelines have unconstitutionally created two classifications of parents; custodial and non-custodial. Such classification is segregation, which is a civil rights violation and strictly prohibited by the Constitution of the United States. This labeling is in violation of the Iowa Statutes under 598 because such terminology applies that one parent has superior rights and legal responsibilities to the other. Furthermore, the State of Iowa does not legally define ¡°non-custodial parent¡± under any Iowa Statutes and thus it can not be applied in legal proceedings. The Child Support Recovery Unit¡¯s usage of it is libel, discriminative, and unconstitutional and thus the CSRU is acting outside of the scope of their job responsibilities. However, for your information, IowaFathers.com officially defines a non-custodial parent as ¡°The father or mother of a child, who supports, loves, cares, educates, disciplines, and raises their child, to the fullest extent that is allowed by Court Order.¡±
The Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868, declares no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Are you familiar with Equality of Result? This is intended to eliminate de facto discrimination from occurring in society. De facto discrimination means discrimination based upon race, sex, religion, ethnicity, and from social economic conditions. However, the current guidelines provide legal representation for the custodial parent in a child support review while denying the non-custodial parent legal representation, which is a form of de facto discrimination.
In defending the legal representation position, CRSU claims they are representing the child and not either parent. However Iowa Statute 598.1(3) states, ¡°¡¯Joint custody¡¯ or ¡®joint legal custody¡¯ means an award of legal custody of a minor child to both parents jointly under which both parents have legal custodial rights and responsibilities toward the child and under which neither parent has legal custodial rights superior to those of the other parent. Rights and responsibilities of joint legal custody include, but are not limited to, equal participation in decisions affecting the child's legal status, medical care, education, extracurricular activities, and religious instruction.¡± Thus by supplying an attorney for the child that represents an interest for the custodial parent, even if only a partial interest for the custodial parent, while denying representation for the non-custodial parent, who also has an interest in the proceeding, even if only a partial interest for the non-custodial parent, de facto discrimination is occurring by means of social economic conditions and thus this practice by the CSRU is unconstitutional and prohibited by the 14th Amendment as clearly stated above. Furthermore, given the legal responsibilities of joint legal custodians as defined above, any interest regarding their child also makes the parents an interest to the proceeding by law. In effect, whenever the state provides legal representation to one party and not the other, the courts findings and CSRU findings are constitutionally null and void. To address this issue, new policies must establish equal legal representation for all parties involved in any CSRU legal proceeding.
The current guidelines establish child support or post secondary education for children between the ages of 19 and 22. This is unconstitutional as it is requiring support for an adult and in violation of the following state and federal statutes, which specifically define a child and/or child support as someone under the age of 18 or a person completing certain requirements prior to reaching the age of 19. Iowa Statute 598.1(6) ¡°Minor child¡± means any person under legal age. Iowa Statute 598.1(9) "Support" or "support payments" means an amount which the court may require either of the parties to pay under a temporary order or a final judgment or decree, and may include alimony, child support, maintenance, and any other term used to describe these obligations. For orders entered on or after July 1, 1990, unless the court specifically orders otherwise, medical support is not included in the monetary amount of child support. The obligations shall include support for a child who is between the ages of eighteen and nineteen years who is engaged full-time in completing high school graduation or equivalency requirements in a manner which is reasonably expected to result in completion of the requirements prior to the person reaching nineteen years of age; and may include support for a child of any age who is dependent on the parties to the dissolution proceedings because of physical or mental disability. Iowa Statute 252A.1(2) "Child" includes but shall not be limited to a stepchild, foster child, or legally adopted child and means a child actually or apparently under eighteen years of age, and a dependent person eighteen years of age or over who is unable to maintain the person's self and is likely to become a public charge. Iowa Statute 252B.1(2) "Child" includes but shall not be limited to a stepchild, foster child or legally adopted child and means a child actually or apparently under eighteen years of age, and a dependent person eighteen years of age or over who is unable to maintain the person's self and is likely to become a public charge. "Child" includes "child" as defined in section 239B.1. Iowa Statute 239B.1(3) "Child" means an unmarried person who is less than eighteen years of age or an unmarried person who is eighteen years of age and is engaged full-time in completing high school graduation or equivalency requirements in a manner which is reasonably expected to result in completion of the requirements prior to the person reaching nineteen years of age. USCS ¡ì 2251 "Minor" means any person under the age of eighteen years. [20 U.S.C. 7801 et seq] SEC. 9101.(4) CHILD- The term child' means any person within the age limits for which the State provides free public education. Sec. 111. [42 U.S.C. 5106g] the term " child " means a person who has not attained the lesser of¡ª(A). the age of 18; or (B). except in the case of sexual abuse, the age specified by the child protection law of the State in which the child resides. Furthermore, a child may not legally serve in the military but [50 U.S.C. App. 451 et seq.] requires virtually all male U.S. citizens, as well as immigrant men residing in the U.S., to register with the Selective Service System (SSS) when reaching age 18. Furthermore, a U.S. Citizen on SSI Disability receives a benefit for each child under the age of 18 or under the age 19 if in high school full time, after which the benefit ceases because they are no longer considered a child.
The current child support guidelines require non-custodial parents to pay for medical insurance for their children. However, a married couple is not obligated by the State of Iowa to meet the same responsibility. Thus this law is unconstitutional and is in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The current guidelines allow for de facto discrimination by means of social economic conditions. To address this issue, new policies must establish equal application among all social classes or the policy must be abolished.
Upon the completion of your recommendations, please send me a copy of the entire report comprised by your committee. Please mail this report to the following address:
Attn: Bryan Iehl
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to review and include my recommendations. There are many inequities of the current child support guidelines explained above that must be remedied by this committee to take the proper action to ensure all constitutional rights are upheld. Failure for this committee to take the necessary action to correct these injustices will result in legal action against the State of Iowa with potentially every non-custodial parent.
I look forward to receiving your final report. Any questions or concerns, please advise!
Governor Chet Culver
Chief Justice Ternus
Attorney General Tom Miller
P.O. Box 2884 ¡ñ Waterloo, Iowa ¡ñ 50704-2884 ¡ñ support@IowaFathers.com
Numerous inequities exist in America today . . . so many it blows a rational person’s mind determining where to start to fix our woes. Legal systems that continually fail to apply the laws of the land EVENLY to all classes of its citizens will loose the support and respect and eventually the control of their subordinates. Our judicial system sustains and even promotes “gender discrimination” which is more prevalent today than any other period of time in American history. . . and because the news media chooses to ignore or disregard the crisis, public awareness is low. This inequity exits for all races . . . red and yellow, black and white: And crosses all income levels from poor to rich and in-between.
In order to clarify the roles of moms and dads, let me take you back in time. The family system in the 50’s is quite different than today’s makeup. Generally, the mother was a stay-at-home mom who fixed meals, maintained order and made sure all the little, but important things got done like doctor visits, trips to the store and getting the kids off on time for school. The father was the bread winner in the one-income family structure, usually working at a job during the day and home to guide the family unit in the evenings and on week ends and holidays. At meal time all would gather around a dinner table as a group discussing events of the day and allowing interaction between siblings and parents. In the evenings after the dishes were done, (few families had electric dishwashers) the children could relax and watch a little television, provided their homework was done. Mom and dad would do things as a family unit such as attend a child’s sporting event or go on a picnic or maybe a vacation in the summer time. Sundays, mom insistent the children attend church. Divorce and a divided family was not the normal structure. When problems arose, divorce was the last course of action taken, not the first.
Today, the majority of families consist of the mother as the head of the family expected to control her child without the assistance of the child’s father. Many times there are several children in the home, each with a different father, but the same mother. Sometimes the mother works outside the home to support her family. Often public assistance and father’s child support are the only means of income. Sadly, generations of children have grown up with no fathers in the home and Welfare and food stamps as a means of survival
Even before the time of Daniel Boone, women and men were taught the importance of Christian family values. With the inception of Welfare and other social give-a-way programs, the family concept gradually eroded. Marriage is a contract between a man and a woman and it is implied if God blesses the parents with children, it is the responsibility and duty of each parent to raise and provide for their offspring. Children have no say in the matter of being born. It is entirely the decision of their parents. As such, the mother and father have the obligation and responsibility to teach their children right from wrong, educate, feed, house, and clothe and the general public should NOT financially be expected to support other people’s children. Married couples used to take their vows seriously to honor their word and live by their marriage contract. . . until death do them part. Today, in the United States, more than 50% of family structures end up in divorce. This number is unacceptable and completely out of control!
I am now going to get down to the nitty-gritty of the problem. In the case of SINGLE Women Only (not married): In times past and human nature the way it is, women often claimed (and rightly so) they “accidentally” became pregnant. In ancient times right up through the 1950’s pregnancies were difficult to control. Today with the numerous birth control devices available and even the day-after-pill, a woman becomes pregnant because she wants a baby. Many women implore entrapment as a way to get a husband. These SINGLE women who choose (all on their own) to become pregnant should not expect other people to pay for their child’s birth or support the child. It is her right to give birth to the child and her responsibility to support the infant until reaching an adult age. . . Not the responsibility of the father through child support nor government agencies such as Welfare. In other words, the SINGLE mom can have the baby if she wants to, but she has to do all the providing.
Now for the case of the MARRIED Woman who becomes divorced: Keep in mind approximately half of the country today is divorced. The separated or divorced mother and father must support their children and not expect the public to provide assistance. Child support should be based on the cost to raise a child (or children), not the amount of money someone makes. The Federal Government must take control from the state of divorce proceedings when children are involved. This will eliminate the problems with different laws among states. It will also eradicate the state’s ability to profiteer through the six-six-six rule. Note: The complicated 6-6-6 rule reimburses Federal monies to individual states for awarding custody to mothers usually with high father child support obligations. The parent (mother or father) who fails to make child support payments should be held accountable by the Federal authorities. A Federal law must be enacted through our legislators that in divorce proceeding involving the welfare of children there exists a rebuttable presumption of joint physical care. . . Rebuttable presumption means a judge starts off assuming the mother and father are both fit parents and unless one party can prove otherwise, both parents participate with equal authority in the raising of their children. Rebuttable presumption of joint physical care is the ”fair and Christian” way of dealing with the heartaches and trauma of custodial battles. Both parents start out on an even plain with neither mother nor father having the edge. In most court cases today the litigant wearing the skirt is at a distinct advantage as supported by the fact only 15% of men are granted custody. One last comment before I close: A woman should NOT be permitted to use a child “as a weapon” against her former husband by denying visitation. This is cruel treatment for both the child and father!
Throughout the country there is an ever increasing movement among fathers who believe they have been raped by the legal system. High child support payments, inability to have contact with their children, extremely expensive legal fees, and even extreme cases of unfit mothers maintaining custody of the children have pushed many fathers beyond their limits. Public social programs which include the six-six-six rule are expensive to maintain and an unfair tax on our citizens.
How often in the news do you hear about a father taking his child and running away? How often in the news do you hear that a mother left her children for a period of time unsupervised and still got to keep her kids? How often do you hear about women moving away with the child(ren) to restrict the fathers access? Didn’t the woman in the Duke rape-case falsely accuse and ruin the lives of several players on the soccer team without consequence? Is it true a judge wouldn’t commit a sex offender to prison because he was “too short”?
It is no wonder fathers are frustrated with the unbalanced judicial system in the United States. Judges may rule not according to the law, but depending how they feel on a particular day. Since the conception of Welfare, old time family structures and values have changed with divorce as the norm, not the exception. Generations of children have been taught the government owes them a living through all the give money away programs. Children imitate and learn through the actions of their mother and father and tend to copy what they are taught. Single mothers must support their children and not expect entrapped fathers or social programs to provide for their living expenses. The Federal court system should take over divorce proceedings when children are involved upholding uniform laws from state to state. Previously married mothers should not have an unfair advantage over fathers in which 85% of divorce cases involving children the woman wins and receives custody: Rebuttable presumption of joint physical care should be the starting point in all custody cases. Women should be penalized if they use their children as a weapon to control or inflict pain on the father. The penalty could be loss of child custody. In today legal system, fathers are at an extreme disadvantage and are often treated unfairly and are in effect made a “slave” of the system. Helpless children and poor fathers suffer through the enactment of the Federal 666 rule requiring statutorily procedures to improve effectiveness of child support enforcement.
The following link:
is the latest appeals court case that deals with post-secondary child support and addressing the issues in Bryan's letter on this topic.
This must be argued on the Federal Court level. Nothing will ever get resolved on this issue at the state level because of the monetary benefit that the state risks to loose.
Let the state continue to think they are immune from applying the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and watch what happens when one-quarter of a million Iowans participate in such a case against the State of Iowa.
The State of Iowa is in serious trouble in Federal Court as evident by the following case law from other states who have challenged the post secondary education requirement. The Post Secondary requirement can not be constitutional in Iowa, but unconstitutional in Pennsylvania, Ohio, etc.
I've spoken with our board and we are going to file in Federal Court if the post secondary requirement and other recommendations are ignored by the Child Support Advisory Committee and the Supreme Court as in years past. Realistically, over one-quarter of a million ncp's could join this class action lawsuit.
Pennsylvania The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania found that the statute requiring post-secondary educational support violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Curtis v. Kline, 666 A.2d 265 (1995).
Ohio The obligation of the parent to support his children extends to, but not beyond, each child’s majority. Thiessen v. Moore, 137 N.E. 906 (1992). Sec. 3109.01 sets 18 as the age of majority. An order in a divorce decree requiring payment of a child’s educational expenses beyond 18th birthday is reversible error. Verplatse v. Verplatse, 477N.E.2d 648 (1984).
Arkansas A.C.A. Section 9-14-105 gives the court jurisdiction to grand support for minority children. The age of majority is eighteen. Courts have ruled that once a child reaches majority, the legal duty of the parents to provide support ceases. Towery v. Towery, 285 Ark. 113, 115, 685 S.W.2d 155, 156 (1985). However, there is an exception for when the child is mentally or physically disabled at the time the child reaches majority. In Turney v. Turney, 1992 WL 61671 (Ark.App.) an 18 year old was denied post-minority support.
California Ann.Cal.Code Sec. 3901 states that the duty to pay child support continues until the child turns 18. Support can continue while they are a full time high school student, not self-sufficient, until they reach the age of 19 or finish the 12th grade, whichever comes first. Sec. 3910 allows for support of an incapacitated adult child.
New Mexico The trend is that the trial court does not have jurisdiction over post-minority support for children. See Christiansen v. Christiansen, 666 P.2d 781 (1983). In Phelps v. Phelps, 509 P.2d 254 (1973), the Supreme Court of New Mexico held the trial court had no authority to enforce divorce judgment regarding support payments for parties’ 18 year old daughter.
Connecticut General Statute Sec 46b-84(b) states that support terminates at 18. However, if the child is still in high school, unmarried, and still lives with one of the parents, support continues if the child is in need of maintenance until the child completes the 12th grade or turns 19, whichever comes first. Otherwise, courts will not compel post-secondary educational support. Case law has followed these trends. See Cariseo v. Cariseo, 459 A.2d 523 (1983) and Gallo v. Gallo, 440 A.2d 782 (1981). A recent case found the jurisdiction of the superior courts is limited to approval and incorporation of written agreements between the spouses. 1997 WL 381234, at 8.
Virginia Agreements extending support would be upheld although the statutory age of majority is 18. McCaw v. McCaw, 403 S.E.2d 8 (Va.App. 1991).
Michigan Sec. 552.16(a)(1) states that a court may order support for a child after child turns 18, but only until child reaches 19 years and 6 months of age. Agreements between the parties are enforceable. It is necessary for the child to be a full-time student to qualify for post-majority support. Rowley v. Garvin, 562 N.W.2d 262 (Mich.App.Ct. 1996).
Delaware D.C.A. Title 13, Chapter 5, Sec. 501(d) states that support continues until the child reaches the age of 18 if the child is a full time high school student and is likely to graduate. Duty ends at 19 or graduation, whichever comes first.
Florida F.S.A Sec. 743.07(2) states that support can be required past 18 for dependency due to mental/physical incapacitation prior to child reaching majority, or if the person is dependent, between 18-19, still in high school, performing in good faith and with a reasonable expectation of graduation. In that case, support will continue until 19. This statute also says that "[this section shall not prohibit any court of competent jurisdiction from requiring support for a dependent person beyond the age of 18." Courts have ruled that there is no fixed rule forbidding an order of increased child support to finance a child’s college education until they reach 21 years of age. Nicolay v. Nicolay, 387 So.2d 500 (1980). The trend has been that parents do not have to pay for college for their children unless the child is actually dependent. Florida will compel postsecondary support upon a finding of actual dependency, but attendance at college does not necessarily render a child dependent. Slaton v. Slaton, 428 So.2d 347, (Fla. 1 Dist. App. 1983). Children who will turn 19 before they graduate from high school "are entitled to no support during their eighteenth year, even though they are in school." 686 So.2d 753, 755 (1997).
West Virginia The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia ruled that if a child is incapable of supporting himself as a result of physical or emotional disabilities, parents obligation to support the child continues beyond the child’s age of majority. Kinder v. Schlaegel, 404 S.E.2d 545. However, in McKinney v. McKinney, 337 S.E.2d 9 (1985), the Supreme Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in extending child support payments of the husband beyond the child’s 18th year, since emancipation statutes, Cod 2-3-1, act as an absolute bar to any extension of support obligations. Therefore, the husband is not obligate to support a child after the child reaches 18.
Arizona A.R.S. 25-320 says that child support should continue only until the child reaches majority. The age of majority in Arizona is eighteen. There is an exception for disabled children. There is also an exception for children who reach majority while still in high school. The legislature did not intend the child support obligation to continue past the age of majority while a child is still in high school if the child has become emancipated for reasons other than reaching majority. Guzman v. Guzman, 175 Ariz. 183, 854 P.2d 1169. Courts will enforce separate contracts to provide post-minority support in a separate contract action. Solomon v. Findley, 167 Ariz. 409, 808 P.2d 294 (Ariz. 1991), which overruled Helber v. Frazelle, 118 Ariz. 217, 575 P.2d 1243.
Wyoming In Jennings v. Jennings, 783 P.2d 178, the Wyoming Supreme Court held that a father could not be required to support a child after reaching the age of majority, except that there is a duty of support of a child beyond the age of majority in the case of a physically/mentally disabled child, (continuing disability prevents child from becoming emancipated). The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's holding that the father had no obligation to support his son beyond age 19 years.
Kentucky Post-majority support only for child after 18th birthday if child becomes physically or mentally incapacitated. Court has no power to decree support in any other circumstances. Reed v. Reed, 457 S.W.2d 4 (1970). Emancipation when child reaches age 18.
Nebraska Sec. 42-5-201 states that support is owed to a child and Sec. 43-2101 states that all persons under 19 are minors. Sec. 43-504 states that the term dependent child shall mean a child under the age of 18 years, or 19 years if full time student in secondary school. The Supreme Court of Nebraska ruled that a "district court in a dissolution action may not order child support beyond the age of the majority of a child over the objection of any parent." Zetterman v. Zetterman, 512 N.W.2d 622, 624 (1994).
Tennessee T.C.A. Sec. 34-1-101(b) provides: parents or guardians shall continue to be responsible for the support of any child or children for whom they are responsible after the age of 18 if such child or children are in high school. Such duty shall continue until the child graduates or the class of which the child is a member graduates, whichever occurs first. In Nash v. Mulle, 846 S.W.2d 803 (1993), the Supreme Court of Tennessee found that "[b]y lowering the age of majority from 21 to 18 years of age the Legislature has completely emancipated the minor from the control of the parents and relieved the parents of their attendant legal duty to support the child."
Oklahoma The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that pursuant to 43 O.S. 1991, Sec. 112(D), if the custodial parent is providing a dependent child, over the age of majority who is attending high school, with the necessities of life, the continuation of child support until the age of 19 is warranted. Carr v. Carr, 834 P.2d 970 (1992).
Wisconsin In Miller v. Miller, 227 N.W.2d 626 (1975), the Supreme Court of Wisconsin stated that it is well established that, divorce being a statutory proceeding, the authority of the court to order support is limited to the minor children of the parties. In Wisconsin, a person loses his status as a minor at 18.
Nevada Sec. 125B.020 states that parents have a duty to provide the child necessary maintenance, health care, education, and support. A dependent child is one who is 18 or less, or is under 19 years of age and is still a high school student. In Norris v. Norris, 560 P.2d 149 (1977), the court held that where the husbands obligation to support the son derived solely from divorce decree provision ordering him to pay support until son reached age of majority or was otherwise emancipated, and where husband and wife did not enter into agreement fixing support obligation, such obligation derived solely from divorce decree itself, and thus courts power to order child support was limited to the minority of the child.
Utah The Court of Appeals of Utah held in Balls v. Hackley, 745 P.2d 836 (1987), authority of the trial court, to extend a parent’s obligation to support his or her child beyond the age of 18 is discretionary and may only be exercised upon a finding of necessity and special/unusual circumstances. Utah Code Ann. Sec. 15-2-1 states: The period of minority extends in males and females to the age of 18 years; but all minors obtain their majority by marriage.
She is a vindictive ex wife who also happens to like government handouts. She also happens to be from India, a place where she could do much more good for womens rights then here.
I will say this, people like her have written the books on the state of child custody for many years. It's truly because of her mean spirited campaign of misinformation that we have such a hard row to hoe now. This is the sort of misinformation that we have to overcome. We really need to start an education campaign. I was thinking that maybe we can do something this summer at some of the county fairs. I don't think a booth is all that expensive. It would really help to print up some informational brochures and even have some Non-Custodial moms there to show that not all non-custodials are dads, and not all non-custodials are deadbeats. This is something to ask Maja; What do you do when both parents who divorce are capable of raising the child? In her eyes, you make one a winner and one a loser. What she is complaining about as far as mom's on welfare is simple to explain. Why would a mom, or any custodial parent want to work hard enough that they lose their welfare benefits. She has an assumption built into her argument that all custodial parents want off of welfare. She is wrong. My ex is a perfect example of this and I'm not saying what I believe. I'm saying what she herself told me. We need to educate this summer. Let's sit down and look into doing something like a county fair circuit or something else similar.
My ex is the same way. She "volutarily", although I belive and rummors are she lost because of her conduct, a fairly desent paying job in which she could use her education I payed for to go on welfare and bread lab puppys. Yes a bread of dog where in any clasified add you can find Free to good home puppies papered and everything.
Ah, but you don't know the half of it. Maja is a true warrior having gone to the statehouse for years lobbying for tougher laws against "deadbeats" and having countless articles written on her behalf from Reka Basu of the DSM Register. Furthermore, Maja is heavily involved with a private company designed to threaten, cajole, and extort every possible cent from all the "deadbeats." She is careful to point out how much money is owed in past due child support often mentioning uncollected amounts. Among issues she fails to address are the following:*Why are men 95% of the non-custodial population*Default judgements against low-wage earners that artificially inflate debt statistics*Why women fail to pay child support in far greater numbers when they are the NCP even though their average CS bill is far less*Parental Alienation issues in relation to those not paying child supportPerhaps there is a connection to the FACT the money she attempted to get from her husband was well above his salary. No wonder he failed to keep up and no wonder he ran off. My guess is prison was better than living with that monster of a woman! I have read how her children hate their father - how did that happen if he was never around? Obviously, Ms. Manners brainwashed them very well as she felt perfectly justified in her Parental Alienation (something she denies even exists anywhere) since he was behind in his child support. Remember, above all else, his child support was beyond his ability to make money so he was "guilty" of not paying no matter what he did. My objection is this MOONBAT has no business on the Child Support Advisory Committee.
Lets form our own commity and set reasonable guidlines write up a recomendation to counter whatever BS she comes up with and present it to our lawmakers.
Sorry, I forgot to mention that the article “Survey finds spike in Iowa homelessness-- Problem has hit poor moms with kids especially hard since `99” by Lee Rood was in the Des Moines Register (on the front page).
If the lack of support is cousing homelessness for custodail parrents and NCPs have so much extra money and can provide a home then I have to ask again why is the child living with the homeless parrent. If one parrent is so much better off then why doesn't that parrent have custody? I wonder how many of the homeless she counted included NCPs driven out of house and home to collect child support?
I guarantee she is telling him about the need to go after "Deadbeats" and to stop Joint Physical Care. Notice how warm John Edwards is while listening to her - in case anyone wondered how Trial Lawyer John Edwards feels about fathers.
Of course everyone knows that whats best for children is to have their daddys be called jailbirds. Maja has to be knocked down a peg or two. How can someone so evil and vindictive even get custody.
I think no taxes without representation is an exelent idea, This Phrase once incited rebellion and I think it can do it again if the gov isn't carefull.
I read Maja's response and I have to say that I have some information for her myself. As a mother who is a non-custodial parent, who worked two jobs trying to pay my child support obligation, and also has previously needed and used the assistance of benefits for D.H.S previously to being a non-custodial parent I have seen both sides of the coin and I can say that with out a doubt, I will make it my person mission to not only remove her from her position on the advisory board but to ensure that no person like her is ever allowed on the board again. I will be writting this Moonbat,lol, a letter myself, and I also like the idea of having a booth at state and city functions this summer. I am on board with you, but I agree for the sake of the cause we need to see more women on this project, realisticly speaking, the best candidates are the new wives of non-custodial dads.
Clearly our most effective members tend to be second wives and grandmothers who endure alongside their husbands and sons.
I want a state angency called VEA visitation enforcement agency, this would enforce court ordered visitation and I want fines imposed on CPs for violations. They have CRSU we want equal treatment, the fines will support the Agency and now the CPs will have to be as carefull as we have to be. We want the same amount of money from the Feds as CRSU gets or at least the same deal of matching funds.
It of course makes sense that only 1 in 20 would go down as most requests are made by parent recieving support payments and the majority of the time everyones income increases, although not always as fast as inflation. I know that there is no way I will be making as much but am wondering what specific items the CSRU looks at for income. Will they only look at paystubs from a month ago and last years tax form? Or will they actualy look at income today, or both? I was under the impression that there is a minimum requirement regardless of income but the fact is there is no way I will even be able to keep up or catch up at current levels. Is it really possible they would increase payments when I am not even employed or at best would be making only 70% or less than previous income? I know this as I have very carefully studied job market, area, and economy. Has anyone been through a modification lately? I know this is not a completely rational system or department, but surely there must be a somewhat consistant method for handling these type of situations isn't there???? By the way, has anybody else noticed "missing" support payments when case gets transferred to CSRU? Nothing big enough to get legal about, but it is like anytime it gets transferred into thier office they mysteriously lose a month, or week of records.
Supported videos include:
Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!