SPARC Forums

Main Forums => Child Support Issues => Topic started by: MYSONSDAD on Aug 11, 2004, 09:11:28 AM

Title: 'Kerry's View on Child Support'
Post by: MYSONSDAD on Aug 11, 2004, 09:11:28 AM
Thank you for writing to John Kerry some time ago with your thoughts about child support. John Kerry has been a tireless leader on children's issues. Throughout his career he has fought to improve child support enforcement laws.

In the past few years, little has been done to tackle the national child support crisis. Millions of families across the country are unfairly prevented from providing their chi! ldren with basic necessities, including clothing, food and medical care. Failure to pay child support is a
widespread problem, cutting across income and racial lines. Nationwide, over $92 billion in accumulated unpaid support is owed to millions of children.

The Kerry Administration will make it a priority to improve and enforce child support laws so children receive the necessities they need and deserve. John Kerry will bring attention to this critical issue, and work towards real solutions for families. Our children are our future.



Democratic National Committee
430 S Capitol St SE
Washington, DC 20003


http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/

Thought this was interesting insight....
Title: HMMMMM
Post by: jilly on Aug 11, 2004, 01:20:04 PM
Sounds to me like he's for making it easier for women to keep milking money out of their ex husbands and continuing the deadbeat Dad myth.
Title: RE: 'Kerry's View on Child Support'
Post by: highlonesome on Aug 13, 2004, 06:38:10 AM
It's worth it to spend some time over at those forums to get the message out.  Myself -- and another from here who calls himself Parent of Child have been successful at getting parental rights it's own forum under the "Ensuring Civil Rights" section.

Many of us are also fairly active on the Women's Issues threads trying to debunk what's false while supporting what's true.  You should check it out and participate.  Ignorance to what really goes on is our biggest enemy among voters -- the truth is our friend.
Title: RE: HMMMMM
Post by: Brent on Aug 16, 2004, 12:09:15 PM
>Sounds to me like he's for making it easier for women to keep
>milking money out of their ex husbands and continuing the
>deadbeat Dad myth.

Although it's very carefully worded so as to be "gender neutral", that's what I'd guess too. You can never go wrong demonizing 'deadbeat dads' and as a politician Kerry knows this all too well.
Title: RE: 'Kerry's View on Child Support'
Post by: kyanox on Aug 24, 2004, 05:05:13 PM
So in other words, fathers like me who barely make $7 bucks an hour have to give $350 dollars a month because some jerk making 200K a year can.  

Here's the candidate i will vote for.

One who is about equality of the family in law, who pushes the government out of these support areas, but allows for legitmate parents to parent their children.  As for thoes mothers who arent going to get any support, say the parent doesnt make it, they can do what every other mother does, and go get a job.  In the same route, if the child needs childcare, then the father should be able to help, but as the law stands, i've seen support orders for 35,000 dollars plus.  WHAT CHILD NEEDS 35,000 to survive.  Gosh with that kind of order the child doesnt even need a job.  What does that teach our children.

Sincerely,
Concerned parent
Title: RE: 'Kerry's View on Child Support'
Post by: Tucker on Aug 25, 2004, 04:03:48 AM
When someone figures out a way to FORCE the CP to spend the child support on the CHILDREN as it's intended, I'll support that.  Right now the CP has the right to spend the money anyway they see fit.  Most of the time on stuff that doesn't involve the kids.  At the same time, the NCP has to have the exact same things in place in their home for the children and does it on less money.  (I.E.  Food. Clothes, Bed, Heat, Water, Elec....)  


An overhaul of the Child Support system is way over due.  Problem is, until someone quits listening to the whining when the issue is brought up, nothing will get done.  

Child Support Money should be spent exactly on what it's called:

CHILD SUPPORT!

'nuff said.
Title: RE: 'Kerry's View on Child Support'
Post by: POC on Aug 25, 2004, 07:29:14 PM
The link did not lead to the article when I tried it. Even when I typed "child support" into the site's search engine that article didn't come up. The worst thing I can say about what I've seen at the site is that a position on the subject has been conspicuously absent.

I think I've held their feet to the fire a little bit. They are certainly being a lot more careful in the words they choose than I've seen in the past.

POC
Title: RE: 'Kerry's View on Child Support'
Post by: MYSONSDAD on Aug 25, 2004, 10:07:15 PM
I agree. I will vote for the canidate who can put the child first and have both parents show responsibility financially, emotionally, equal time, full disclosure of the child's health and educational records and a right to make decisions concerning the child.

Get the title Custodial-Non Custodial out of the courts. Give parents, when they are both found to be fit,  the right to parent their child equally.

'children learn what they live"
Title: RE: 'Kerry's View on Child Support'
Post by: tdhuffman03 on Aug 27, 2004, 06:02:06 PM
I have been doing a lot of research in regards to the child support laws in Illinios and also in Georgia.

I found a case Civil Action No. 2000 C 127--- it was great in brief I will tell you what the case was about:

CP was trying to get NCP to pay child support on three children.  CP gross income per month$2647.50 and NCP gross income per month$1862.  Plus the CP was taking the tax benefit every year.  In the end the judge found the Georgia child support guidelines uncostiutional.  And based on the findings that were presented by the Cost Shares Model that Mr. R. Mark Rogers (http://www.guidelineeconomics.com) put together.

Now if we could only get the rest of the states to see that the current child support is a profit for the CP then we would be doing something.
Title: What does it REALLY say?
Post by: gr8Dad on Aug 28, 2004, 12:03:40 AM
Lets tear it apart and see:

"Thank you for writing to John Kerry some time ago with your thoughts about child support."

~Notice it does NOT say that the following are HIS thoughts, just an answer to YOUR thoughts.

"John Kerry has been a tireless leader on children's issues."

~And how many politicians have gone out of their way to really STICK it to the kids?  Who ISN'T for children's issues?

"Throughout his career he has fought to improve child support enforcement laws."

~Well, FIRST, a majority of child support laws are STATE laws, so he has had really very little input.  Second, can you name ONE candidate that has fought to WORSEN child support enforcement laws(as if that is even POSSIBLE)?  

"In the past few years, little has been done to tackle the national child support crisis."

~What crisis?  People not paying, or people paying too much?

"Millions of families across the country are unfairly prevented from providing their children with basic necessities, including clothing, food and medical care."
 
~This is actually BRILLIANTLY written to be defensible to both sides.  Could be saying to a CP, I understand that you are not getting your support, and therefore cannot provide, blah, blah, blah...OR

Could be saying to a NCP, I understand that you are paying to much, and when the child is with you, you cannot provide blah, blah, blah

"Failure to pay child support is a widespread problem, cutting across income and racial lines."

~Again, easily defensible.  If you contacted him because your support was to high, you are told, "Well, you, all those deadbeats..."

"Nationwide, over $92 billion in accumulated unpaid support is owed to millions of children."

~Wanna bet this includes children who are in their 30's and 40'...support from a LONG time ago.

"The Kerry Administration will make it a priority to improve and enforce child support laws so children receive the necessities they need and deserve."

~Yeah, as opposed to all those other candidates who are looking to make little children starve...

"John Kerry will bring attention to this critical issue, and work towards real solutions for families. Our children are our future."

~When did it go from a "crisis", to a "critical issue"?  WARNING, flip-flop alert.  And who ISN'T working towards solutions to EVERY problem.  What will you ACTUALLY DO?

"Democratic National Committee 430 S Capitol St SE Washington, DC 20003"

~BEST line in the reply.  Kerry, if called on this, can say, "It wasn't ME that said that, it was the DNC..."

This reply says, actually, NOTHING.  
Title: My thoughts exactly
Post by: VeronicaGia on Aug 30, 2004, 08:35:14 AM
Nothing but a canned response, really not giving a response at all.

Flush both John's!
Title: It's a bed bug letter..........
Post by: msme on Aug 31, 2004, 07:40:49 PM
Many years ago, in the early days of the railroads, bedbugs were a problem in the sleeping cars. If someone wrote in to complain, they had a form letter that they sent out that was all full of appologies.

A railroad official's wife had an encounter with the little critters & swiftly sent off her complaint to the head of the houskeeping department. The guy attached a note stating that a clerk should "send this bitch the bedbug letter." The clerk did so, however, he failed to remove the note. That's when the $$$$ hit the fan & the rest is history.

Shut someone up by sending a letter that says a lot & means
nothing. "The Bedbug Letter"

Maybe this will help.

How to feel better and have a good day......
 
 
1. Open a new file in your PC.
 
2. Name it "John Kerry."
 
3. Send it to the Recycle Bin.
 
4. Empty the Recycle Bin.
 
5. Your PC will ask you, "do you really want to get
rid of John Kerry?"
 
6. Answer calmly, "yes," and press the mouse button
firmly.
 
7. Feel better?

You never get a second chance to make a first impression!
Title: I'm with you, it says nothing at all.
Post by: olegeezer on Sep 08, 2004, 02:23:25 PM
Very carefully worded. After all, Kerry is a divorced dad from MA, and even though he's wealthy beyond belief, he had to figure out the law was not in his favor when the orders were written and the lawyers paid.

I think the real question is whether he was dumb enough to represent himself in court? He is a lawyer, by the way. ;)
Title: RE: HMMMMM
Post by: annas mom on Sep 21, 2004, 10:07:37 AM
It's funny to me that you're all so quick to jump on the 'baby mama' bandwagon. Suffice it to say that I've read enough posts here to know that alot of you truly are caught in a bad situation in regards to the amount of support you are ordered to pay for children that you aren't allowed to see. However, you must also see the flip side of the coin. For the majority of my child's 2 years I have been her sole supporter, even though my child's father makes more than twice what I make. He has 3 children total (only one of which is mine) and in order to evade paying support he changes jobs constantly. He is a truck driver and has worked for several companies in the last 2 years. Whenever CSE catches up with him, he quits and goes to work somewhere else. Even though I have a court order for support (measly 184.00/month I might add, since I pay 400.00/month just for daycare) it is highly unenforceable due to the fact that they can't get him into court because they can't ever find him long enough to do a review and have him served for court. I know that I'm ranting, but sometimes you just gotta get it out. I really do feel for you fathers (and stepmothers) who are in bad situations, but please just be aware that there are also mother's who are in bad situations. I read these posts and feel sad for all of the fathers out there who are denied access to their children and then I read a set of posts like this and it maddens me to no end that you don't realize that not all mothers are money grubbers who don't take proper care of their children. Hope I didn't offend...just venting. Good luck to you all in your pursuit of family harmony.