S.P.A.R.C.

Separated Parenting Access & Resource Center
crazy gamesriddles and jokesfunny picturesdeath psychic!mad triviafunny & odd!pregnancy testshape testwin custodyrecipes

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - VeronicaGia

Pages: 1 2 34 5 ... 16
21
Michael Badnarik from the Libertarian Party!  Go to the link for lots of info, but below the link is his stance on parental rights.  Badnarik has my vote.

http://www.foxnews.com/youdecide2004/background.html?officials&search&badnarik

Presidential Race
Issue: Parents' Rights

No issue is more sensitive -- and few issues are more troubling to Libertarians -- than the role of government in family life. On the face of things, the federal government has an even smaller role in that area than it does in most, and I favor keeping Washington out of issues like defining and licensing marriage, regulating homeschooling, mandating childhood vaccinations or using tax policy for "socially engineering" the makeup and function of the family.

However, there are some areas of family life in which the federal government arguably has a role to play. The Constitution ordains that all Americans receive the equal protection of the law, and it prohibits involuntary servitude.

In both of these areas, the federal government has failed America's families and, in particular, its parents.

Equal protection of the law pre-supposes fairness for those coming before the bar of justice. Yet in divorce proceedings, the states routinely award custody of minor children to one parent or another, relegating the other parent to the status of "second-class citizen" -- not because the latter parent has been convicted of any crime, or found unfit, but because of a prejudice in favor of father or mother as the best "single" parent.

This is a matter of federal interest under the 14th Amendment, even intra-state. Once one parent or another, possibly with a child in tow, moves to another state, any shadow of doubt is erased. It becomes an interstate matter, and by definition therefore falls under federal jurisdiction.

As president, I will direct the Justice Department's civil rights division to investigate state policies which violate the 14th Amendment rights of parents and to pursue the elimination of those policies in court. The default presumption in any divorce proceeding must be for joint custody of minor children. Failing the waiver of that presumption by one parent, or proof that one parent is unfit, to deny any parent equal access to, and equal participation in the raising of, his or her children is clearly an abuse of law and repugnant to the Constitution.

Above and beyond the matter of custody comes child support. While it is reasonable to assess support for a minor child when circumstances dictate that he or she will be living exclusively with one parent, the matter has been inflated into, literally, a federal case.

The 13th Amendment prohibits involuntary servitude. In the Slaughterhouse Cases, the Supreme Court clearly and unambiguously ruled that this prohibition applies to "peonage" -- the attachment of criminal liability to failure to pay, or work off, debt. Yet, across the nation, hundreds of thousands of non-custodial parents find themselves in court, often charged with felonies and facing prison, for their failure or inability to pay child support. Further, the federal government has intervened to the extent of maintaining a special database to track "deadbeat parents" across state lines in order to enforce these draconian and unconstitutional laws.

As president, I will direct the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice to sue states which attach criminal liability to child support obligations and, if necessary, to charge government officials who administer that unconstitutional criminal liability with violations of the civil rights of non-custodial parents.


22
Child Support Issues / My thoughts exactly
« on: Aug 30, 2004, 07:35:14 AM »
Nothing but a canned response, really not giving a response at all.

Flush both John's!

23
>Thanks for the info!  Do courthouses have the paperwork we
>need? I thought we had to come up with it ourselves.  I am
>trying to read enough to walk him through this, it's alot to
>take in at one time!  And this may seem like a dumb question,
>but it doesn't have to be typed does it? He can just fill in
>the info with a pen, right?  I wish we could go file it
>tommorrow, but the courthouse is atleast 3 hours away, and I
>still have to find a way to come up with the money to file the
>paperwork.  But We will find a way to do it within the next
>two weeks!

Do a search for your state's court forms.  For example, if you are in Michigan, go to google and in the search box type "Michigan Court Forms"

Or tell us what state you are in and maybe someone here already has a link.

24
Child Support Issues / RE: Child Support Help Needed
« on: Aug 05, 2004, 12:56:58 PM »
My guess is your boss's court order clearly states that his ex has custody and he is ordered to pay her child support.  Until he gets custody modified with the court, and in turn, gets child support modified, he will continue to owe this and will continue to have his wages garnished.

Why hasn't he contacted a family law attorney to file the modification of custody and child support?

25
Child Support Issues / RE: Unborn child physical custody
« on: Jun 04, 2004, 06:46:28 AM »
Since the child is not yet born, there is no child.  Since she moved to CA, once she has the baby there, the child will become a resident of the state of CA.

You need to get an attorney in your home state and file for divorce and make sure the judge knows you intend to file for custody once the child is born.  If you don't file, she will file in CA and you will have to travel back and forth for every court date.

Go on the offensive, get an attorney, file the paperwork now!

26
http://www.detnews.com/2004/metro/0403/07/b01-84022.htm

Sunday, March 7, 2004
Cox: Put deadbeat parents in jail
Critics say child support system isn't up to the task of attorney general's proposal
By Gary Heinlein / Detroit News Lansing Bureau

LANSING — Attorney General Mike Cox, who has gone after child support scofflaws with unmatched fervor, wants to put deadbeats behind bars for up to 10 years if they owe $20,000.

Cox is pushing a package of tough new laws that a state Legislature dominated by fellow Republicans soon will consider. A dads group contends those laws mostly would lock up low-income fathers and those the state’s mistake-prone child support computer incorrectly says are behind in payments.

The legislation also would entitle Cox to an annual printout listing Michiganians who are at least $200,000 in arrears — 442 of them at present — and help the attorney general meet his announced goal of collecting $10 million in overdue child support this year.

Cox soon will have seven attorneys and 14 investigators at work full time on such cases, with the federal government picking up two-thirds of the annual cost of $725,000.

“If you steal $20,000 from a stranger in Michigan, you’re looking at a 10-year felony,” Cox said. “There are graduated penalties for stealing from a Meijer store, or your boss, or a neighbor. Why shouldn’t that also be true if you steal from your kids?”

Cox said there are about 40,000 people who owe at least $40,000 each in back child support in Michigan’s six biggest counties alone. Another 17,000 owe at least $50,000, he said.

His crusade has the spirited endorsement of parents like Cheryl Boyagian, a Woodhaven real estate broker who is unlikely to retrieve more than a fraction of $170,644 in unpaid support for three kids from her ex-husband that built up over 17 years.

“It’s an awesome idea,” said Boyagian, who got help from Cox’s staff so she can recover some of the money. “I had to go on Aid to Dependent Children. There were quite a few nights when all I’d have were a couple of hot dogs for three kids. I feel bad for young mothers who have to go through that.”

With all but one of her children now grown, Boyagian learned in court Jan. 29 that she’ll be able to collect just $88 a week in current support from her former husband, now living in Bowling Green, Ky., until her youngest son turns 18 in October. She’ll be back in court later this month asking for an order specifying how long she also can receive $255 a month in back support.

“If you hold people accountable for their actions, or inactions, they’re more apt to comply,” Boyagian said.

But Murray Davis, a leader in an organization that lobbies on behalf of fathers who have problems with the state’s system of deciding custody and child support, is urging lawmakers to delay action.

“We have a problem with the timing. The system is in such turmoil, riddled with such egregious errors, that there’s no question it’s going to victimize support payers,” said Davis, of Southfield, who is vice president of the National Family Justice Association.

“Innocent people are being sucked up into the big dragnet and abused by the system,” he said.

In Wayne County, which has nearly half the state’s 800,000 child support orders, Chief Judge Mary Beth Kelly supports Cox’s proposal. She has established a court docket giving special attention to parents more than $10,000 in arrears. Prosecuting them netted more than $1 million in 2003.

“There have been too many noncustodial parents who have learned how to manipulate our legal system, and who have resources to support their children,” Kelly said. “Those are the persons for whom criminal prosecution is appropriate.

“I don’t believe criminal prosecution should be used — and I don’t think it is being used — for the financially struggling parent who is trying to support his or her children.”

Critics say the zeal for rounding up child support outlaws is distracting officials’ attention away from badly needed updating of Michigan divorce laws. Noncustodial parents — still mostly dads — would be more inclined to pay support if they were treated more fairly and given more time with the kids when custody is awarded to mothers, they argue.
Cox agreed that divorce issues are broader than child support alone. But he said he’s attacking the part of the problem that’s within his realm as attorney general.

i>Detroit News Staff Writer Kim Kozlowski contributed to this report. You can reach Gary Heinlein at (517) 371-3660 or gheinlein@detnews.com.


27
Child Support Issues / RE: Child support and a second marriage
« on: Feb 25, 2004, 05:12:04 PM »
A prenup will not help you.  A prenup is between you and your spouse, not anyone else.

However, the most a judge will do as long as you are not voluntarily unemployed or underemployed is consider whether or not you pay more or less taxes due to your spouses income.  However, just in case you get behind on support (it happens to the best of people), keep completely separate checking accounts, savings accounts, etc.  That way, if you do get behind and CA is able to secure a judgement lien against you, only your accounts will be hit, not your wifes.

You may also want to consult a family law attorney, but really you don't have too much to worry about.

28
Child Support Issues / RE: Re: PBFH
« on: Feb 12, 2004, 04:50:02 PM »
>Well let me start off by explaining the situation.  My
>husband of 14 yrs has a daughter whom now lives with us.  

**Has custody been changed through the courts?
His >ex wife calls all the time wanting her money.  We recently
>moved and my husband changed jobs so we are sending it
>ourself.  

**He is sending it through CSE, correct?

Anyway, PBFH doesn't work and pretty much has
>nothing to do but call us and make our life a living hell.
>She knows all of our business and is driving me crazy calling.

**Why do you continue to answer the phone?

> One day she called several times, she was going to get her
>daughter a ball and glove for softball, but as the day went on
>she kept calling she sounded drunk, but she told me she was
>taking xanax, and kept taking them until she could quit crying
>over her daughter moving in with us.  She also told me on
>another occassion, that her daughter was in high school, and
>that I shouldn't buy her clothes at Walmart, they should come
>from the mall, because she wants her to look nice...

**Stop talking to her.

>The child is 17, and doesn't know how to cook, do math, spell,
>read very well, and has pretty much been sheltered all her
>life.  Me and SD get along very well, but the BM is driving me
>nuts.  

**Which is exactly what she wants.  She's not happy, and she will make sure you aren't either.

My husband is ready to give up.  We will never get the
>CS caught up.  

**How far is he behind?  Has he filed for a modification asking the judge to abate it since he has custody?  In other words, will the judge consider taking monthly support off his tab to offset the fact that she is not paying him?

The BM knows that if she calls the AG, they
>will bring him to court and she can get some more money, even
>though we have the child.  

**Maybe, maybe not.  Your husband needs to be able to support the child since she isn't doing it.

She says that he owes it to her, and he should continue paying even though we have her.  She deserves it.  Anyway, sorry to go on and on, but I don't know what to do, and no matter what, BF will always lose.  He can't even have a relationship with his daughter because of BM.

**He needs to stop allowing his ex to run his life.  You too.

>WHAT TO DO???? Thanks for listening...!

**Stop taking her calls.  Turn the phone off if you have to.  Keep a journal of every one of her calls.  She's harrassing you and she's winning.

29
Child Support Issues / RE: child support payments
« on: Feb 12, 2004, 04:44:01 PM »
And if you get another job, make sure it is cash paying, such as a waiter, bartender, etc.  

However, it is illegal for your employer to take that much from your salary.  Unless you modify the order though, you will go into arrears for the balance.  You need a modification.

30
Child Support Issues / RE: Average Child Support
« on: Feb 12, 2004, 04:39:42 PM »
Well, first off, you don't mention your state.  However, you need to realize that since support is based on income, it can vary.  If your state uses gross income, it is usually about 17% of gross income for one child.  If it is net income, it is usually about 25% of net income for one child.  Then, tack on insurance coverage, out of pocket medical costs, daycare (if appropriate), private school (if appropriate), extracurricular activities (if appropriate), etc.  Plus, the costs incurred with having the child at your home too during visitation.

If the average income in your state is higher than most, the average support orders could be higher.  Also, $1,100 a year is nothing.  My DH pays $450/month plus $80/month in insurance.

Pages: 1 2 34 5 ... 16
Copyright © SPARC - A Parenting Advocacy Group
Use of this website does not constitute a client/attorney relationship and this site does not provide legal advice.
If you need legal assistance for divorce, child custody, or child support issues, seek advice from a divorce lawyer.