Register  |   |   |  Calendar  |  Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #1 

 

 

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:

 

IowaFathers.com

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!

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Bryan Iehl

Founder

 

 

Cc:

Governor Chet Culver

Chief Justice Ternus

Attorney General Tom Miller

 

 

 

P.O. Box 2884 ¡ñ Waterloo, Iowa ¡ñ 50704-2884 ¡ñ support@IowaFathers.com

 


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
Will

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 104
Reply with quote  #2 
Well stated and very accurate!  How soon before the class action is filed? 

__________________
Children Need Both Parents
Winston50703

Avatar / Picture

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 271
Reply with quote  #3 

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. 


__________________
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America" – former President William Jefferson Clinton
IceMountain

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 161
Reply with quote  #4 

The following link:

http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/court_of_appeals/Recent_Opinions/20070228/6-984.pdf

 

is the latest appeals court case that deals with post-secondary child support and addressing the issues in Bryan's letter on this topic.


__________________
~~Every child has the right to be treated as a person and not as a pawn, possession or a negotiating chip~~
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #5 

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.


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #6 

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.

 

 

 

 


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
Hawkeye

Avatar / Picture

Facilitator - Cedar Rapids
Registered:
Posts: 611
Reply with quote  #7 

Excellent research!


__________________
http://www.hughesforgov.com

"All great questions must be raised by great voices, and the greatest voice is the voice of the people - speaking out - in prose, or painting or poetry or music; speaking out - in homes and halls, streets and farms, courts and cafes - let that voice speak and the stillness you hear will be the gratitude of mankind." - Robert Kennedy Jan 22, 1963
IceMountain

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 161
Reply with quote  #8 
WoW!!!
__________________
~~Every child has the right to be treated as a person and not as a pawn, possession or a negotiating chip~~
concerned

Member
Registered:
Posts: 31
Reply with quote  #9 
Excellent Work!  Here is the actual case:



542_Pa_249
BONITA KLINE CURTIS v. PHILIP H. KLINE; APPEAL OF:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE
No. 6 Eastern District Appeal Docket 1994
SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
542 Pa. 249; 666 A.2d 265; 1995 Pa. LEXIS 925
September 21, 1995, ARGUED
October 10, 1995, DECIDED

PRIOR HISTORY: [***1] Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, Domestic Relations Section, Entered January 12, 1994 at No. 1012 N. 1984, Granting Defendant's Petition to Modify and Terminate Support.
JUDGES BELOW: Hon. James P. MacElree, II. Curtis v. Kline, 25 Pa. D. & C.4th 276, 1994 Pa. D. & C. LEXIS 123 (1994)

DISPOSITION: Affirmed.

COUNSEL:
    FOR APPELLANT: Jason W. Manne, Esquire, Dept. of P.W., John A. Kane, Esquire, Dept. of P.W.

    FOR APPELLEES: Kenneth C. Myers, Esquire, B. Curtis, William Mitman, Jr.,
Esquire, P. Kline, Albert J. Momjian, Esq., Amicus.


JUDGES: BEFORE: NIX, C.J., FLAHERTY, ZAPPALA, CAPPY, CASTILLE AND MONTEMURO, JJ. Mr. Justice Montemuro * files a Dissenting Opinion in which Mr. Justice Cappy joins.

* Mr. Justice Montemuro is sitting by designation.
OPINIONBY: ZAPPALA
OPINION: [*253] [**267] OPINION
JUSTICE ZAPPALA

    DECIDED: October 10, 1995
    In Blue v. Blue, 532 Pa. 521, 616 A.2d 628 (1992), we declined to recognize a
duty requiring a parent to provide college educational support because no such
legal duty had been imposed by the General Assembly or developed by our case
law. As a result of our Blue decision, the legislature promulgated Act 62 of
1993. Section 3 of the Act states:
(a) General rule. -- . . . a court may order either or both parents
who are separated, divorced, unmarried or otherwise subject to an
existing support obligation to provide equitably for educational costs
of their child whether an application for this support is made before
or after the child has reached 18 years of age.
23 Pa.C.S. § 4327(a). [***2]
    The issue now before us is whether the Act violates the equal protection
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the [*254] United States Constitution.
n1 The Court of Common Pleas of Chester County held that it did, resulting in
Page 1 542_Pa_249 this direct appeal. n2
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n1 The Appellee did not assert that he was denied equal protection under our
state constitution. We note, however, that we would apply the same analysis and
reach the same result under our state constitution. n2 42 Pa.C.S. § 741.
- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    The relevant facts are not in dispute. Appellee is the father of Jason, Amber
and Rebecca. On July 12, 1991, an order of court for support was entered on
behalf of Appellee's children. On March 2, 1993, Appellee filed a petition to
terminate his support obligation as to Amber, a student at Kutztown University,
and Jason, a student at West Chester University. After Act 62 was promulgated,
Appellee was granted leave to include a constitutional challenge to the Act as a
basis for seeking relief from post-secondary educational support. [***3]
    In accordance with Pa.R.Civ.P. 235, the Attorney General was notified of the
constitutional challenge to Act 62, but declined to participate in the
litigation. On January 11, 1994, the trial court granted Appellee's petition to
terminate support for Amber and Jason, concluding that Act 62 violated the equal
protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
After Appellee's petition to modify his post-secondary education support
obligation was disposed of, the Department of Public Welfare (DPW) sought and
was granted leave to intervene. DPW then filed a notice of appeal to this Court.
The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution in pertinent part provides:
No State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    The essence of the constitutional principle of equal protection under the law is
that like persons in like circumstances will be treated similarly. Laudenberger
v. Port Authority of Allegheny County, 496 Pa. 52, 436 A.2d 147 (1981). [*255]
However, it does not [***4] require that all persons under all circumstances
enjoy identical protection under the law. James v. SEPTA, 505 Pa. 137, 477 A.2d
1302 (1984). The right to equal protection under the law does not absolutely
prohibit the Commonwealth from classifying individuals for the purpose of
receiving different treatment, Robson v. Penn Hills School District, 63 Pa.
Commw. 250, 437 A.2d 1273 (1981), and does not require equal treatment of people having different needs. Houtz v. Commonwealth, Department of Public Welfare, [**268] 42 Pa. Commw. 406, 401 A.2d 388 (1979). The prohibition against treating people differently under the law does not preclude the Commonwealth from resorting to legislative classifications, Heisler v. Thomas Colliery Co., 260 U.S. 245, 43 S. Ct. 83, 67 L. Ed. 237 (1922), provided that those classifications are reasonable rather than arbitrary and bear a reasonable
relationship to the object of the legislation. Commonwealth v. Parker White
Metal Co., 512 Pa. 74, 515 A.2d 1358 (1986). In other words, a classification
must rest upon some ground of difference which justifies the classification and
have a fair and substantial relationship to the object of the legislation.
[***5] Id.
    Judicial review must determine whether any classification is founded on a
real and genuine distinction rather than an artificial one. Equitable Credit
and Discount Company v. Geier, 342 Pa. 445, 21 A.2d 53 (1941). A classification,
though discriminatory, is not arbitrary or in violation of the equal protection
clause if any state of facts reasonably can be conceived to sustain that
Page 2 542_Pa_249 classification. Federal Communications Commission v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 113 S. Ct. 2096, 124 L. Ed. 2d 211 (1993); Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 90 S. Ct. 1153, 25 L. Ed. 2d 491 (1970). In undertaking its analysis, the reviewing court is free to hypothesize reasons the legislature might have had for the classification. Federal Communications Commission v. Beach Communications, Inc.; Martin v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 502 Pa. 282, 466 A.2d 107 (1983). If the court determines that the classifications are genuine, it cannot declare the classification void even if it might question the [*256] soundness or wisdom of the distinction. Equitable Credit and Discount Company v. Geier. n3
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n3 We are also guided by the principle that a strong presumption exists that
all legislation promulgated by the General Assembly is constitutional. 1 Pa.C.S.
§. See also Federal Communications Commission v. Beach Communications, Inc.,
supra; Plowman v. Commonwealth, Dpt. of Transportation, 535 Pa. 314, 635 A.2d
124 (1993).
- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - [***6]
    We are also mindful of the different types of classifications and the
standards according to which they are weighed:
The types of classifications are: (1) classifications which implicate
a "suspect" class or a fundamental right; (2) classifications
implicating an "important" though not fundamental right or a
"sensitive" classification; and (3) classifications which involve none
of these. Id. Should the statutory classification in question fall
into the first category, the statute is strictly construed in light of
a "compelling" governmental purpose; if the classification falls into
the second category, a heightened standard of scrutiny is applied to
an "important" governmental purpose; and if the statutory scheme falls
into the third category, the statute is upheld if there is any
rational basis for the classification. Smith v. City of Philadelphia, 512 Pa. 129, 138, 516 A.2d 306, 311 (citation omitted).
    In this instance, we are satisfied that Act 62 neither implicates a suspect
class nor infringes upon a fundamental right. Neither the United States
Constitution nor the Pennsylvania Constitution provides an individual right to
post-secondary education. The Pennsylvania [***7] Constitution provides only
that, "The General Assembly shall provide for the maintenance and support of a
thorough and efficient system of public education to serve the needs of the
Commonwealth." Article III, Section 14. Through the Public School Code of 1949,
Act of March 10, 1949, P.L. 30, as amended, 24 P.S. § 1-101 et seq., the General
Assembly has established a statutory right to participate in public education
and has established compulsory attendance requirements that in no case extend to
post-secondary education. See 24 P.S. § 13-1301 and § 13- [*257] 1326 -
13-1330. Apart from Act 62, there appears to be no expression of policy
regarding an individual's "entitlement" to participate in post-secondary
education.
     Likewise, the classification does not implicate an important though not
fundamental right. n4 Consequently, Act 62 must be upheld [**269] if there
exists any rational basis for the prescribed classification. It is in this
context that we review the Act's creation of a duty, and more significantly a
legal mechanism for enforcement of that duty, limited to situations of
separated, divorced, or unmarried parents and their children.
Page 3542_Pa_249
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    n4 Appellee admits that in the court below both he and his ex-wife argued
that a "rational basis" test should be applied. He now argues that since the
trial court addressed the applicability of a "heightened scrutiny" test, that
argument should not be considered waived. Since that issue was not raised before
the trial court, we decline to address it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - [***8]
    In applying the rational basis test, we have adopted a two-step analysis. See
Plowman v. Commonwealth, Dpt. of Transportation, 535 Pa. 314, 635 A.2d 124
(1993). First, we must determine whether the challenged statute seeks to promote
any legitimate state interest or public value. If so, we must next determine
whether the classification adopted in the legislation is reasonably related to
accomplishing that articulated state interest or interests.
    The preamble to Act 62 sets forth the legislature's intention "to codify the
decision of the Superior Court in the case of Ulmer v. Sommerville, . . . and
the subsequent line of cases interpreting Ulmer prior to the decision of the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Blue v. Blue . . . ." (Citations omitted). It also
states:
Further, the General Assembly finds that it has a rational and
legitimate governmental interest in requiring some parental financial
assistance for a higher education for children of parents who are
separated, divorced, unmarried or otherwise subject to an existing
support obligation.
This latter statement begs the question of whether the legislature actually has
a legitimate interest in treating children [***9] of separated, divorced, or
unmarried parents differently than [*258] children of married parents with
respect to the costs of post-secondary education.
    Appellant argues that with the passage of Act 62 the legislature may have
chosen to treat the children of married families and divorced/unmarried families
differently, not as a preference towards the latter, but out of deference to the
Commonwealth's strong interest in protecting the intact marital family unit from
governmental interference. Alternatively, Appellant argues that the legislature
may have determined that children in non-intact or non-marital families require
educational advantages to overcome disadvantages attendant to the lack of an
intact marital family. The critical consideration is whether either of these
bases or any other conceivable basis for distinction in treatment is reasonable.
     Act 62 classifies young adults according to the marital status of their
parents, establishing for one group an action to obtain a benefit enforceable by
court order that is not available to the other group. The relevant category
under consideration is children in need of funds for a post-secondary education.
The Act divides these persons, [***10] similarly situated with respect to
their need for assistance, into groups according to the marital status of their
parents, i.e., children of divorced/separated/never-married parents and children
of intact families.
    It will not do to argue that this classification is rationally related to the
legitimate governmental purpose of obviating difficulties encountered by those
in non-intact families who want parental financial assistance for post-secondary
education, because such a statement of the governmental purpose assumes the
validity of the classification. Recognizing that within the category of young
adults in need of financial help to attend college there are some having a
parent or parents unwilling to provide such help, the question remains whether
the authority of the state may be selectively applied to empower only those from
non-intact families to compel such help. We hold that it may not. In the absence
of an entitlement on the part of any individual to post-secondary education, or
Page 4542_Pa_249 a generally applicable requirement that parents assist their [*259] adult children in obtaining such an education, n5 we perceive no rational basis for the state government to [**270] provide only certain adult [***11] citizens with legal means to overcome the difficulties they encounter in pursuing that
end.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    n5 Quaere whether the legislature could extend the statutory liability for
support of children applicable to all parents, 23 Pa.C.S. § 4321(2), without
regard to marital status, 23 Pa.C.S. § 4323(b), to include a duty to pay
post-secondary education costs?
- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    It is not inconceivable that in today's society a divorced parent, e.g., a
father, could have two children, one born of a first marriage and not residing
with him and the other born of a second marriage and still residing with him.
Under Act 62, such a father could be required to provide post-secondary
educational support for the first child but not the second, even to the extent
that the second child would be required to forego a college education. Further,
a child over the age of 18, of a woman whose husband had died would have no
action against the mother to recover costs of a post-secondary education, but a
child over the age of 18, of a woman who never married, [***12] who married
and divorced, or even who was only separated from her husband when he died would be able to maintain such an action. These are but two examples demonstrating the arbitrariness of the classification adopted in Act 62.
    In LeClair v. LeClair, 137 N.H. 213, 624 A.2d 1350 (1993), the New Hampshire Supreme Court was faced with the issue of the constitutionality of a state
statute regarding post-secondary educational support. Initially, it must be
noted that the Court decided this appeal based upon the New Hampshire
constitution even though the appellant contended that the statute denied him
equal protection under both the federal and state constitution.
    The underlying premise upon which the New Hampshire Supreme Court undertook its constitutional analysis of the post-secondary educational support scheme was that the legislation created two classifications: married parents and divorced parents. The object of the legislation was to protect children of divorced
parents from being unjustly deprived of opportunities they would otherwise have
had if their parents [*260] had not divorced. The statute was promulgated to
ensure that children of divorced families are not deprived of educational
[***13] opportunities solely because their families are no longer intact. The
result is a heightened judicial involvement in the financial and personal lives
of divorced families with children that is not necessary with intact families
with children. The New Hampshire Supreme Court concluded that because of the
unique problems of divorced families, the legislature could rationally conclude
that absent judicial involvement, children of divorced families may be less
likely than children of intact families to receive post-secondary educational
support from both parents.
    With all due respect to our sister state, we must reject the New Hampshire
Supreme Court's analysis in LeClair. The discriminatory classification adopted
by our legislature is not focused on the parents but rather the children. The
question is whether similarly situated young adults, i.e. those in need of
financial assistance, may be treated differently. n6
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n6 See also Childers v. Childers, 89 Wash. 2d 592, 575 P.2d 201 (1978), and
Neudecker v. Neudecker, 577 N.E.2d 960 (Ind. 1991).
- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - [***14]
Page 5542_Pa_249
    Ultimately, we can conceive of no rational reason why those similarly
situated with respect to needing funds for college education, should be treated
unequally. Accordingly, we agree with the common pleas court and conclude that
Act 62 is unconstitutional.
    The Order is affirmed.
Mr. Justice Montemuro * files a Dissenting Opinion in which Mr. Justice
Cappy joins.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* Mr. Justice Montemuro is sitting by designation. J-148A-1995
- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -


KenRichards

Avatar / Picture

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,895
Reply with quote  #10 
I warned everybody about Maja Rater before right?

She is on the Child Support Advisory Committee (she sets the child support guidelines for everybody) so what do you think of her "unbiased" tendencies once you read the following she wrote in response to SF507 Joint Physical Custody:

 
Maja Rater writes...

We only need the courts and CSRU involved when fathers (mostly) don't willingly provide for their children. Over one billion dollars are owed to children in Iowa where non-support is a felony class-D. If the laws meant anything the prison would be full of deadbeats. Instead we are lucky if dad gets to serve a week in jail for ignoring his economic obligations to his children while moms are working several jobs or being treated as an indentured servant by the state if she dares to turn the state for aid because she feels that it is important that the children have a parent available and not always in the work force.

Maja Rater
Casey, Iowa

 
For sake of kids, pass law presuming joint custody

Joint physical custody is not about the kids. It is about eliminating child support obligations for dads. Fathers Rights groups have been trying for years to get rid of child support obligations and now they have found a new way to get rid of it.
CSRU was created to collect child support from dads unwilling to support their children. It has now turned into an agency which tries any which way to lower the child support obligations to some ridiculous amount. In the meantime tax payers are left to hold the bag. Tax payers demanded an end to Aid to Dependent Children because they were fed up with having to support these millions of children fathers had abandoned. Instead they ended up with paying more in subsidies to these abandoned families. If these fathers really cared about their children they would be upset about the $107 billion owed across the nation in unpaid child support leaving children in poverty and neglect. Homelessness is rising in Iowa among children and single moms. No it is all about avoiding their own responsibilities abilities to their children.
Laws mean nothing in this country or we would not have this child support debt. There are plenty of laws in this nation but they are ignored. The court ordered child support orders are not worth the paper they are written on.
Physical joint custody will solve all the social problems in this country, right? Not eliminating poverty by paying an adequate child support payment? In Europe they are not short of single moms but they don't allow abandonment of the children. They have generous subsidies which they don't envy the children as we do in this country.
We don't mind spending all this money on fatherhood programs which cuddle deadbeat fathers and turn then into victims while ignoring the plight of the children who are truly the victims. We don't mind spending billion of tax payer money ignoring the laws holding fathers economically responsible for their children. And now fathers have come up with another way to totally leave their economic obligations to their children to society at large.

Maja Rater
Casey, Iowa

 



Big_Eric

Avatar / Picture

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 907
Reply with quote  #11 
She is so wrong it isn't funny. The way she blows everything out of proportion is a testament to that. If things are so bad for the mom, then by all means, let dad raise them. Oh, you don't want to do that? Then I guess being the custodial parent isn't as bad as she says it is. Why do so many women fight against a fair situation? We know the reason. Someone ought to point that out to her. Ask her to explain why many of her moms voluntarily remain underemployed. Working three jobs? Show me one that works two! Okay, maybe you can show me one that works two part time jobs. This is about dad's unwilling to support their children? Who wants to write to this lady and set her straight? There's so much wrong with her argument I wouldn't even know where to begin.
 
  By the way, just who the hell is this Maja lady anyway? How did someone like this get on the child support advosory board anyhow? I would love to see her on the receiving end of her own brutal system. She would sing a different tune. Is she some sort of judge or lawyer or something?

__________________
Eric E. Durnan
Wadena, Iowa

[i]I don't see the glass as being half full or half empty. I see the glass as being twice as large as it needs to be. [/b]
Chad

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,320
Reply with quote  #12 

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.


__________________
What's wrong with socialism in one sentence:
When you implement “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” magically, everyone starts having quite a lot of need and very little ability.
Big_Eric

Avatar / Picture

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 907
Reply with quote  #13 

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.


__________________
Eric E. Durnan
Wadena, Iowa

[i]I don't see the glass as being half full or half empty. I see the glass as being twice as large as it needs to be. [/b]
Chad

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,320
Reply with quote  #14 

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.


__________________
What's wrong with socialism in one sentence:
When you implement “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” magically, everyone starts having quite a lot of need and very little ability.
KenRichards

Avatar / Picture

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,895
Reply with quote  #15 

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 support

Perhaps 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.


Chad

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,320
Reply with quote  #16 

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.


__________________
What's wrong with socialism in one sentence:
When you implement “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” magically, everyone starts having quite a lot of need and very little ability.
KenRichards

Avatar / Picture

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,895
Reply with quote  #17 
More words of "wisdom" from Maja on Tom Vilsack's campaign web blog.

Over one billion dollars are owed to children by deadbeat parents in Iowa (mostly dads).  We are the “ordinary, common” folks that no one cares about.
Because of my personal experience and the experience of the moms who contact me I know for a fact the problem is the arrogance of the agency in charge of enforcement that is the problem--often compounded by the arrogance of the judges presiding over the cases.
Senator Tom Vilsack promised to move child support collections from CSRU (Child Support Recovery Unit), to the Department of Revenue and Finance if elected.  That department is more willing to use the tools available to collect than the “social workers” presiding at CSRU.  He reneged on that promise..  However, the republican majority Legislature could have moved the collections to that department which they refused to do.  Twice my state legislators introduced a bill to do so which was never allowed up for a vote in the committee--so pox on all their houses!!
This child neglect is causing a lot of pain and hardship (even homelessness) for many families.  With Governor Tom Villach’s childhood experiences one would think he would be “Johnny on the spot” and do what he can to alleviate this human suffering.  Non-support is a felony class-D in Iowa and it is the governor’s duty to see to it that “the laws of the state are faithfully executed.” I can only assume that this governor is not sincere in his concerns for the “average, common folks” who suffer because of neglectful (criminal) behavior by parents!!
Although 16 states do better at collecting court ordered child support than Iowa the picture overall is still pathetic Non-support by parents has become a cultural norm.  Over $107 Billion are owed nationwide to children by parents (in spite of CSRUs all over the nation lowering child support awards to some ridiculous amounts like $50 per month!).
I believe that because of governors like Governor Tom Vilsack, who are unwilling to uphold the laws of the land, child support collections need to be turned over to Internal Revenue Services.  I am looking for a candidates for president who is willing to support that concept!!
Posted by Maja Rater in Casey, Iowa | Monday, December 04, 11:28 AM EST | www
#40

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).

Posted by Maja Rater in Casey, Iowa | Monday, December 04, 11:38 AM EST | www
KenRichards

Avatar / Picture

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,895
Reply with quote  #18 
Photo

Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards talks with Maja Rater, of Casey, Iowa, after announcing his national energy plan at the Biomass Energy Conversion Center, Tuesday, March 20, 2007, in Nevada, Iowa. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)
KenRichards

Avatar / Picture

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,895
Reply with quote  #19 
If you think we are the only ones campaigning guess again.  Maja has been doing this for like 20 years.  We need a few more Tony Taylors, Bryan Iehls, Mart Connells, and all those who went to the statehouse to talk with legislators.  Maja is making the rounds too and she will NEVER be happy with child support guidelines (bear in mind she is writing them at this point) and we need to step up our game too. 

This is the face of the enemy and the first rule of successful combat is to know your enemy.
Chad

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,320
Reply with quote  #20 

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?


__________________
What's wrong with socialism in one sentence:
When you implement “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” magically, everyone starts having quite a lot of need and very little ability.
KenRichards

Avatar / Picture

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,895
Reply with quote  #21 

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.

KenRichards

Avatar / Picture

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,895
Reply with quote  #22 
She must be writing about another event since her dates don't match but read on to understand the mind of Maja Rater (the nemisis on the Child Support Advisory Board)

Edwards preaching to the choir

I attended the John Edwards rally at the State Capitol on July 14. I was hoping for some specifics on issues in regards to the economic class I have resided in for years because of the state's unwillingness to enforce and collect the court-ordered child support from my children's father. After all, Edwards talked about two Americas during his campaigning for president, and I spoke to him several times during his visits to Iowa.

However, all I heard was his concerns about the middle class and how they lived from paycheck to paycheck. People in my class borrow from Payday agencies to make it from paycheck to paycheck.

I did hear Gov. Tom Vilsack talk about single parents and their troubles hanging on to health care, apparently implying that the problem lies at the doorstep of President Bush (although I have brought to his attention that the problem for many single parents is unenforced court-ordered medical and child support, making it impossible for parents to put their children on their employer-provided health insurance and/or pay the co-payments when services are needed).

Edwards did talk about values (whose?) but apparently not mine, as well as President Bush's unwillingness to accept accountability, as Britain's Tony Blair had done, in regards to the faulty intelligence data on which he has sent this nation to war (for which both John Kerry and Edwards voted). Well, no words about accountability from Vilsack for his dysfunctional state agencies that leave thousands of families in "the other America."

Some of us came to hear some substance, but all we got was the usual "speak to the choir" that appears to be all the crowd wanted as long as it came from the right party affiliation. (Edwards did say he was a good listener, but he must have forgotten the issue I brought to the table.)

People who send me obscene letters as well as religious propaganda (anonymously, of course) whenever one of my letters is published are wasting their time and postage. Small price to pay for fighting for social justice. Vilsack did say that one person can make a difference. I am still waiting. Many people have had to put up with fire hoses, churches bombed and burned, children killed, crosses burned on their lawns, etc. It's small potatoes receiving "junk mail"!

Maja Rater
Casey, Iowa, resident
KenRichards

Avatar / Picture

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,895
Reply with quote  #23 
Other little tidbits from Maja....

GUILTY AS SIN

11/05/2002

$60,000 BEHIND ON CHILD SUPPORT, MAN IS CONVICTED

The ex-husband of a vocal child-support recovery advocate from Casey was convicted of willfully failing to pay his obligations, U.S. Attorney Steven Colloton said Monday. Otho Rater, 59, now of Kansas, admitted during his trial in Des Moines that the past-due obligation to his seven children exceeded $60,000. Rater waived his right to a jury trial and had his case tried before U.S. District Judge James Gritzner. Rater faces a prison term of up to two years when he is sentenced Feb. 3. Rater's case has received widespread attention, thanks mainly to his crusading ex-wife, Maja Rater, who has written letters to newspapers, lobbied lawmakers and criticized bureaucrats since he first failed to pay child support in the mid-1980s.



Otho Rater will be sentenced on February 3rd,2003 at 9 AM in U.S. District Court in Des Moines, Iowa


MAN SENTENCED IN SUPPORT CASE

A Kansas man was sentenced to 15 months in prison for failing to pay child support to children in Guthrie County.

Otho Rater, 59, of Schoenschen, Kansas, owes $87,181.70 in back child support payments. He was indicted on 5 counts of willfully failing to pay a past-due child support obligation on June 25, 2002.

The charges relate to unpaid child support of seven children that has accrued since 1982. He was found guilty of the charges on Nove. 4, 2002

OF COURSE HE IS APPEALING THE DECISION!!!!!



8TH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

Case No. 03-1449 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff - Appellee v. OTHO LEONARD RATER Defendant - Appellant



IOWA CHILD SUPPORT WEB SITE

Chad

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,320
Reply with quote  #24 

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.


__________________
What's wrong with socialism in one sentence:
When you implement “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” magically, everyone starts having quite a lot of need and very little ability.
Big_Eric

Avatar / Picture

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 907
Reply with quote  #25 
Notice how she mentions the class that SHE has to live in because SHE is owed back child support. If her husband owed that back child support way back then, I can only assume that the children are now grown. To her, this is HER money and that doesn't surprise me. She is so typical because she looks to child support as a paycheck for HER. Anyone think I'm wrong? I could expound upon this further.......
 
   By the way, it's comforting to know that we're not the only ones unhappy with the current system. We are trying to fix it while she keeps trying to create winners and losers at the expense of children. How dare she use children for her own financial gain?
 
 

__________________
Eric E. Durnan
Wadena, Iowa

[i]I don't see the glass as being half full or half empty. I see the glass as being twice as large as it needs to be. [/b]
jmposts

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 121
Reply with quote  #26 
Has anyone ever heard of "No taxation without representation?" 

A constitutional challenge could be made against child support on these grounds.  How many  non-custodial parents are on the Child Support Advisory Committee?  How many state legislators are on the committee?  How many NCP advocates are on the committee?  It appears to me the committee is made up of  Femi Nazi's, DHS/CSRU workers, judges, and lawyers.  Say what they want, but child support under the current system is forced taxation thus illegal because of the "no taxation without representation" clause.
Chad

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,320
Reply with quote  #27 

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.


__________________
What's wrong with socialism in one sentence:
When you implement “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” magically, everyone starts having quite a lot of need and very little ability.
ironeagle

Avatar / Picture

Coordinator I.C.O.S.
Registered:
Posts: 815
Reply with quote  #28 

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.


__________________
"I am one of many and together we will prevail!"
KenRichards

Avatar / Picture

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,895
Reply with quote  #29 

Clearly our most effective members tend to be second wives and grandmothers who endure alongside their husbands and sons.

Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #30 

Date:Wed, 23 May 2007 13:07:56 -0700 (PDT)
From:"IowaFathers.com" support@iowafathers.com
Subject:ICSAC Appointment
To:"Rebecca Colton"
   

Rebecca,
 
I would like to serve on the Iowa Child Support Advisory Committee.
 
How do I go about being appointed to the Iowa Child Support Advisory Committee as a member of a non-custodial support group as established under Iowa Statute 252B.18?
 
Sincerely,
Bryan Iehl
Founder
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA  50704-2884

__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
KenRichards

Avatar / Picture

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,895
Reply with quote  #31 

BRAVO!

Chad

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,320
Reply with quote  #32 

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.


__________________
What's wrong with socialism in one sentence:
When you implement “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” magically, everyone starts having quite a lot of need and very little ability.
KenRichards

Avatar / Picture

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,895
Reply with quote  #33 
NO DOUBT WE NEED THAT!

HOW REVOLUTIONARY IF WE HAD THAT IN FORCE.
joejo93

Member
Registered:
Posts: 3
Reply with quote  #34 
Hi, Hellllppppp, I am new here but desperately confused. I hope this is the place for my question. I have just been terminated from my job (this week) and not sure of best time to request modification of child support from CSRU. I know there is no way I will be getting another job that pays as well and expect only will be able to find job at about 70% of what I was making. It has been (luckily) 4 years since last adjustment & my support payments have been in control of Child Support Recovery Unit for many years. If I request an review & adjustment now, will the CSRU use my previous wages to base adjustment on and possibly even increase my payments aven though I am unemployed or at best making 30% less? Do I need to wait 3 months before requesting? Would an attorney be worth while or be better able to change things?
Thanks, Joe
KenRichards

Avatar / Picture

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,895
Reply with quote  #35 
Bryan gets involved in individual cases and other members will have more insight but my limited advice is to be wary when seeking a modification since 1 in 20 goes down and many more actually go up. 

CSRU likes to call men losing money to be "AIDS" victims which means "Aquired Income Deficiency Syndrome" and they believe men fake income loss to lower child support.

If you hire a lawyer the court will wonder how you could afford legal counsel while unemployed.  My best advice is to wait a few months doing whatever work you can do and seek a modification based on your new income after three months.
joejo93

Member
Registered:
Posts: 3
Reply with quote  #36 

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.

ironeagle

Avatar / Picture

Coordinator I.C.O.S.
Registered:
Posts: 815
Reply with quote  #37 
Joe,

Just wanted to let you know a couple of things, first of all there is a supreme court minimum payment in Iowa, $50.00 for 1 child and $75.00 for two and so on, I suggest you try to keep up as well as you can but you can call the C.S.R.U and tell them you want to set up a payment plan, you can pay the supremem court minimum and so long as you do they will not sanction your license, however remember until an official modification is signed by a judge you will still owe the original amount and you will go into arrears, but they will see you are making an effort.

Also my modification has been going on for over a year and a half now I don't put any faith in the courts or C.S.R.U to do the right thing for you but you sure can try. By the time your modification is finished you will probably have a new job . So I agree with Ken you should wait until after your new job to decide if you absolutley need a modification. Just try to pay the minimum so they can't touch you.

__________________
"I am one of many and together we will prevail!"
paradocs

Member
Registered:
Posts: 28
Reply with quote  #38 
Bryan- whatever happened to your Feb 27, 2007, letter (first post in this section)??  Anything?  If you need any additional help, let me know.  I have significant background writing federal rules/regulations/Law-mandate interpretation.  These laws do need to be changed but there are pathways/venues for them.  THanks.
joejo93

Member
Registered:
Posts: 3
Reply with quote  #39 
Ok, so it has been a while now and for whatever it is worth here is the details of what I did, what the CSRU has done, my plan forward, and lots of room for any comments or advice.

I waited until 3 months without a job to file for adjustment of child support. I decided to apply under the justification that the support has not been changed or reviewed in over 2 years. that way I could still apply again under justification that my income has changed dramaticly ( i cant remember the % needed but I am well within that guideline now). It took CRSU about 3 months to process it and they did decide to lower it by about 40%. Of course they based that off the unemployment amount I was getting which ran out exactly when CRSU reached a decision. I was having support taken out of unemployment so I did not fall behind at least. CrSu says the adjustment will not take affect until April 19th at earliest and I suspect my ex may appeal it since it has gone down. She may not however as she is fully aware I am now having zero income. I could appeal and try to get it even lower (crsu even told me this over phone hmmm?) but my thinking is get it reduced by this amount asap and THEN apply for another adjustment based on income change being so large.

Right now I have already gotten federal tax refund in hand but waiting on state and the federal so called rebate which is actually an interest free loan on next years taxes. I currently owe about $300 to child support so if I can at least keep it below 500 I believe they will not go after tax refunds or rebate. Is that true? Although I am not sure how bad or good it will get I am thinking ahead and have had my wife get a seperate bank account and we put almost everything in her account. Currently I am basicly mooching off here and would hate to see her not only paying support for me but my child too. Especially since my daughter does not actually see any of the money. I had to send her cash in mail just so she could get a dress for prom. And yes, I am not letting her trick me into the old get money from both parents. My child support payments have been the boat payment for several years now. It is what it its though so i suck it up and take the beating the system mandates. It is bad enough to be supported almost entirely by my wife but my desire is to pay as little as possible now and try to balance it out later as it hopefully changes (lower) and I hopefully find full time employment. One more item to add to all this is that my daughter turns 18 at end of August 2009. I do realize they will not do any adjustment after August of this year so I am crunched for time too. After reading many horror stories on here I am surprised I have gotten this far with CRSU but any thoughts, experiences, or advice would certainly be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Joe

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:


Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!