Register  |   |   |  Calendar  |  Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
Big_Eric

Avatar / Picture

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 907
Reply with quote  #1 

A BILL FOR

 

   An Act relating to the setting aside of a portion of child

      support payments in a separate fund to be invested and

      reserved for the child.

   BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF IOWA:

   TLSB 5678HH 82

  pf/nh/5

 

PAG LIN

 

 

 

       Section 1.  Section 598.21B, subsection 1, Code Supplement

  2007, is amended by adding the following new paragraph:

  NEW PARAGRAPH.  bb.  The guidelines prescribed by the

  supreme court shall provide that fifteen percent of the child

  support amount which either party is ordered to pay is set

  aside in a separate fund and invested in a well=balanced

  financial portfolio to be reserved for the child until the

  child reaches the age of twenty=five, unless the court

  determines setting aside such amount is not in the best

  interest of the child.

  EXPLANATION

  This bill directs that the child support guidelines are to

  provide that 15 percent of child support paid by either parent

  is to be set aside in a separate fund and invested in a

  well=balanced financial portfolio to be reserved for the child

  until the child reaches age 25, unless the court determines

  setting aside such amount is not in the best interest of the

  child.

  LSB 5678HH 82

  pf/nh/5


__________________
Eric E. Durnan
Wadena, Iowa

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.
carmelita

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 95
Reply with quote  #2 
This posting may not have anything to do with this previous post but in relation to the current legislature session I saw that the session ends April 22.
I would like to suggest that we all set a date when we could rally while the legislature is still in session.If there are any bill or bills that we need to rally about we could do the rally to promote the passage of the bill that we are interested in.
I spoke to a father in Ankeny who is lobbying together with my son that if they know when it would be appropriate to do this rally they should let us know.
I am sure Brian and all of you who are watching the proceedings in the sessions will be able to tell when would be the most appropriate time.
Last year we had a rally on the parental alienation awareness day.Maybe this year we could do the rally in protest for any bill that we would like to see pass the house.
I told my son that if they can notify me soon enough I will gather a group for the day and we will head to Des Moines that day.
I think that if we can gather all our father members and their mothers and their sisters and their children as well as their friends (older children and even younger children)we will be seen as a strong force and we may make a change.


__________________
carmelita t.shah
Big_Eric

Avatar / Picture

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 907
Reply with quote  #3 

What would be really nice is if we could get a legislator get some floor time for one of our members to speak about the horrors of the current family law system. Wouldn't that be nice?


__________________
Eric E. Durnan
Wadena, Iowa

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.
BBW

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 357
Reply with quote  #4 
Floor time has the potential to do a lot. Ironically my former brother-in-law went through a horrible ordeal. He persisted and after seven years testified before the Illinois state law makers. He received plenty of contacts that helped him immensely. I believe there were stiff penalties handed out to his first lawyer and the first judge that heard the case. I'm still in the learning curve here but if there is a way to get a couple of stories out on the floor, I think it would be a great shot in the arm for this cause.

__________________
The amount of success you have in solving a problem is directly proportional to the amount of constructive energy you put into solving it.
ironeagle

Avatar / Picture

Coordinator I.C.O.S.
Registered:
Posts: 815
Reply with quote  #5 

So here's my curiosity on this bill, what will the criminal penalty be if a father already can't pay child support and fails to secure this bank account?


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

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 261
Reply with quote  #6 
At the same time what if the mother can't afford to either. I think some of you are under the impression that all mothers sit back and get rich off of child support. That is not always the case. As we don't want mothers to pidgeon hole us, we shouldn't assume that they are all bad. I guess I'd be curious to hear an answer to that question.
ironeagle

Avatar / Picture

Coordinator I.C.O.S.
Registered:
Posts: 815
Reply with quote  #7 

I don't see what that question has to do with the question I asked. My question is simple, if a non-custodial parent is unable to pay child support, and therfore is unable to open this account, is the non-custodial parent going to face further penalties and charges?


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

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #8 

It sounds good in theory but is it the role of government to dictate how money is spent on our children?  Personally, I think not and this goes for the post secondary requirement as well.


__________________
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).
ironeagle

Avatar / Picture

Coordinator I.C.O.S.
Registered:
Posts: 815
Reply with quote  #9 

I agree with Bryan on this it seems like to me that there are a lot of small bills coming into play, I think they were designed to try to subdue non-custodial parents. I think it's putting a band-aid on a a sawed off leg, like I said before. I think these bills are better than nothing, but I agree that it gives the false feeling of justice when in fact I have never believed that judges should have the right to order citizens to purchase products, insurance, bank accounts, are all products and it should be up to the parents. I think this bill would be better if it was worded differently. I think it would be better if it said that parent's paying child support may be allowed to place 15% of the support each month into an interest bearing account for their child if they so choose.


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

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #10 

I ended up signing in support of this bill after talking with Rep. Berry because at least some of the child support would actually go towards children rather than the new vehicle that so many of our formers who claim destitute drive.


__________________
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).
ironeagle

Avatar / Picture

Coordinator I.C.O.S.
Registered:
Posts: 815
Reply with quote  #11 

I'm starting to become so confused about the child support laws I can barley understand them anymore .


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

Avatar / Picture

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,895
Reply with quote  #12 
This bill is well meaning but very confusing as the administration of it may be impractical. 

I do like the idea but I think it reaches for something that is not a concern for CPs or NCPs.  Consider CPs receiving CS don't like the loss of 15% of their "alimony by another name" as they could have always invested a portion for their children out of the funds received.  NCPs probably like this one a lot more than CPs as long as the 15% is not above and beyond normal CS guidelines.

Children of divorce would benefit from this law if it worked as they would receive a windfall upon their 25th birthday.  I doubt this bill gets anywhere as it is just too difficult to enforce.  We shall see but in any event it is really not a core issue of this group since we know money is not primary concern when compared to visitation and custody issues that occupy our efforts.
JudyChat

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 919
Reply with quote  #13 
I actually posted about this the other day but my post must have not made it through the code thingy and I didn't realize it!

My biggest problem with this bill is the fact that NCP's may wind up paying toward post secondary education for their kids twice.  The money will be set aside under this bill by the CP from what I can see.  If there is any chance that each parent will be forced to pay 33% of the post secondary education expenses for the child, who gets the credit for the money that's been being put aside in the college fund all those years?  Here's a hint, it won't be the NCP!  Even though the NCP is the one who's actually been funding that all along.

That's my biggest beef with it.  Fine to set aside some money out of CS for college, but the CP shouldn't get the benefit of taking credit for it.  Only bright side is the CP would have to pay taxes on the growth of that fund during the years it was under her/his control.
ironeagle

Avatar / Picture

Coordinator I.C.O.S.
Registered:
Posts: 815
Reply with quote  #14 

I agree with judy, but who knows Judy they might find away to give the cp's a tax exemption on the money you never know. I don't agree that visitation and custody is the only reason we are all here, financial devastation and unconstitutional treatment is very important too. I personally believe all issues for ncps are important. It's also intresting to note thta when you take away the financial gain of the courts and the finacial benefits of becoming a sole parent, you will see a lot less children ripped from the lives of their other parent.


__________________
"I am one of many and together we will prevail!"
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:


Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!