About turtledove

turtledove


Follow
Befriend (3)
38 threads
552 comments
Premium
Followed by 1
Following 0
Ignored by 1
Ignoring 0
Ignore turtledove
Aliases
In United States
Registered May 19, 2010

turtledove's most recent comments:

  • On 25 Jul 2014 in The modern women can no longer cook, they no longer want children and..., turtledove said:

    Heraclitusstudent says

    The very fact that there is a child should be subject to choice of both partners.

    I hear ya. However, support guidelines are about the rights of the child. The child has no say as to whether he/she is born. The child is the concern, as it should be. However, I agree with you that, in an unfortunately large number of cases, the wants of the custodial parent are flown under the flag of "the needs of the child." Given that, child support is easily used as a punitive measure against biological fathers.

    For example, it is against federal law for child support orders to be self-executing. Prior to this change, support orders could say something like, "you are required to pay $1,000 per minor child until said minor child reaches majority, marries, dies, etc." So, if you had two children, you would be expected to pay $1,000/child for a total of $2,000/month. When the older child reached the age of 18, you would then pay $1,000/month for the remaining minor child. The reduction in support was self-executing.

    That is not allowed any longer. Support orders written after the law required that support amounts be written as a total amount for all children. In order to reduce the amount after the first child turns 18, the obligor must petition the court. If your children are close in age, this could mean that the court wouldn't even hear your case while the issue-at-hand is still relevant. In other words, the second kid could turn 18 before you have a chance to make a change to the support amount.

    Now, how ridiculous is that? This is a clear example of child support being used to punish the obligor. Either he pays more than he's supposed to, or he pays an attorney to file a petition and maybe can get before the court in time to make a difference.

    Clearly, there is a lot of unfairness in the law. However, when you say that fathers should be able to opt out, you forget that the child has rights and didn't choose to be born... The state isn't going to take up the slack of fathers choosing to opt out. Tax payers are never going to say, "no worries. you didn't really want the kid. we'll pay for him/her." From a court's point of view, it's a losing argument.

    IMHO, if you want to actually win and make positive changes to the law, you should instead focus on the many unfair details that make up the law. There are plenty to choose from.

  • On 25 Jul 2014 in The modern women can no longer cook, they no longer want children and..., turtledove said:

    It's the child that has the right to the child support not the custodial parent. I agree that this FACT is taken advantage of by some custodial parents. However, the right of the child shouldn't be what is in dispute. IMHO, what you should be disputing are the following:

    1) Arbitrary support tables, which aren't based on economic realities but income percentages that have little basis in said reality.

    2) Establishing needs vs. wants. Court ordered child support should be about providing for the needs of a child. No one should be able to order anyone to pay for "wants." We don't force parents of intact families to pay for extra curricular activities, therefore, we have no business forcing divorced parents to pay for it either.

    3) The assumption that the calves belong with the cows. Thanks to equal rights, father's roles have changed considerably over the last 60 years. Sure there are still fathers who don't see their roles in caregiving, but there are plenty of fathers who do. The laws need to reflect that. IMHO, there should be a presumption of 50/50. Automatic unfitness by the father shouldn't be the presumption.

    4) Fiduciary responsibility. Even with a presumption of 50/50, there's the issue of one parent having greater means than the other. In order to make sure that the parent with the least ability to pay isn't shouldering all the financial responsibility for the child's needs, child support is still appropriate. HOWEVER, currently, there is no accountability on the part of the recipient parent. Basically, the way things work now, the person receiving child support could spend the money remodeling the kitchen or gambling in Vegas if he/she chose to. IMHO, this has to stop. There should be strict accounting guidelines for how child support is spent. Since the money belongs to the CHILD, any overages should be accounted for, and at the very least, saved on behalf of the child or returned to the person paying the support.

    5) You have the Bradley Amendment to thank for some seriously perverted laws: Unlike any other debt, child support cannot be forgiven. So, if you lose your job, there are no retroactive reductions allowed. The amount can be lowered going forward, but we all know how long the court system might take. In the meantime, you're screwed. The Bradley Amendment: automatically triggers a non-expiring lien whenever child support becomes past-due; overrides any state's statute of limitations; disallows any judicial discretion, even from bankruptcy judges; and requires that the payment amounts be maintained without regard for the physical capability of the person owing child support.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Amendment

    I hear your complaints, and I think there's some validity. I just think you'd be better off focusing NOT on whether you have an obligation to your child, but on how that obligation is defined. Child support has been around for a long time. That has not changed. Where they got you was in the details. It's the details that need adjusting, not the overall fact that both parents are responsible for the needs of their child.

  • On 23 Jul 2014 in Zombie Lies, turtledove said:

    SoftShell says

    OTOH, what if Dan and CIC are the same person, setting each other up for the kill, depending on which Shirley Mason was typing?

    I think you and I might be the same person. Our names are both compound words. Wait! Did you just say that or was that me?

Home   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail p@patrick.net   Thank you for your kind donations

Page took 141 milliseconds to create.