Familial Status

[POC]

I am not sure if I am right. But, I thought employers were barred from asking one's familial status. I thought the logic was that it was an Equal Rights issue.

1) Is that true?
2) Is that a federal law?
3) If so, doesn't that make it unlawful to discriminate, based upon familial status in other situations?
4) You know where I am going with this;)

[socrateaser]

>I am not sure if I am right. But, I thought employers were
>barred from asking one's familial status. I thought the logic
>was that it was an Equal Rights issue.
>
>1) Is that true?
>2) Is that a federal law?
>3) If so, doesn't that make it unlawful to discriminate, based
>upon familial status in other situations?
>4) You know where I am going with this;)

Yeah, FEDERAL court. However, I need the specific facts of the case or a hypothetical, before I will comment on your questions.

[POC]

I am not sure if I am right. But, I thought employers were barred from asking one's familial status. I thought the logic was that it was an Equal Rights issue.

1) Is that true?
2) Is that a federal law?
3) If so, doesn't that make it unlawful to discriminate, based upon familial status in other situations?
4) You know where I am going with this;)

[socrateaser]

>I am not sure if I am right. But, I thought employers were
>barred from asking one's familial status. I thought the logic
>was that it was an Equal Rights issue.
>
>1) Is that true?
>2) Is that a federal law?
>3) If so, doesn't that make it unlawful to discriminate, based
>upon familial status in other situations?
>4) You know where I am going with this;)

Yeah, FEDERAL court. However, I need the specific facts of the case or a hypothetical, before I will comment on your questions.

[POC]

I'm sorry soc, I wouldn't be monopolizing your time, but it seems like there is a break in posts by others. In the last thread that I posted you mentioned that NCP's are not a protected class, and therefore the level of scrutiny is not as great. Only a reasonable government interest need apply for it to act.

The particular case in question has each parent sharing the children's time equally. Both parents worked, before, during, and even after the marriage. I believe the father was making $275,000 per year. The mother was making $250,000 per year at the same company. He was paying a nominal amount of CS, like $150 / mo. for that slight difference in income, plus $400 / mo. towards college savings. The mother had a couple million saved, and decided to retire. Her investment portfolio took a dive. Presumably, the husband's retirement to a dive too, but he continues to work, and is now earning $450,000 per year. The mother could return to work and would be making $350,000 to $375,000. She sought relief for $4,000 / mo. in child support and the Wisconsin Supreme Court determined that it is in the children's best interests that she not return to work, and that the father pay the mother child support.

I believe that the preponderance of the facts can only lead a rational person to surmise that the state is making parental decisions, when there is no evidence that the children are in any danger. Furthermore, if the parents were married, the state would not step in to decide as to whether a very capable mother should return to work. She is afraid of depleting her retirement funds, not that she would be unable to adequately provide for her children during the 50% of the time that they are with her. Undoubtedly, these children are living better off financially than are most other children in Wisconsin. Additionally, the mother could increase that level of financial care, but decides not to, because she feels her time is better served with the children 50% of the time.

It boils down to be that the government is acting in what it believes is the children's best interests. Whether it is right or wrong is very much up for debate. But, more importantly, it is not rational to believe that it would make such decisions in cases where the parents are married. By definition that means it is discriminating, based upon familial status.

If the government, acting as arbiter in parental disagreements over matters which pertained to a child's best interests was just and served a public purpose, then that same venue ought to be available to married parents. It is inherently understood that fit parents are better suited to make parental decisions than is the government. So, that type of government intervention would be an intrusion. Yet, the government is stepping into situations in which the child is in no harm, when it would not do so for married parents. The only basis for the government's intrusion is what it calls the best interest of the child. Of course, the stats for the children in which it has determined what is in their best interests of children are horrendous, thus proving its inherent deficiencies about such matters.

If not for the familial status of those involved, the government would not have arrived at such decisions. The government bars employers from discrimination based upon familial status, but does so itself. The various state governments do so, while profiting from increased federal welfare monies from these actions.

How is this not both a public taking for a public interest, and a violation of Equal Protection rights, based on one's familial status?

[socrateaser]

>It boils down to be that the government is acting in what it
>believes is the children's best interests. Whether it is right
>or wrong is very much up for debate. But, more importantly, it
>is not rational to believe that it would make such decisions
>in cases where the parents are married. By definition that
>means it is discriminating, based upon familial status.

Divorced parents is not a suspect classification. Therefore, the government's action only needs to be reasonably related to a legitimate state interest, which in this case is the child's welfare, and the state may discriminate in it treatment -- as it does.

Your equal protection argument fails.

>How is this not both a public taking for a public interest,
>and a violation of Equal Protection rights, based on one's
>familial status?

You have raised the takings issue without providing any supporting analysis for a new argument, therefore I will not consider it again, other than to say that parents have a duty to support their MINOR children, i.e., children who are within a parent's legal custody, and taking a parent's money to satisfy the duty is just compensation.

If the child were an adult, I would, and have, demonstrated that there is a taking without just compensation, and that adult child support for an otherwise fit adult child violates the 5th Amendment's takings clause.