Syndicate
Special Thanks To...
The following organizations were early supporters of Mensactivism.org, and we thank them for their support. If you'd like to trade links with us, see our Mensactivism.org supporters page.
NPO: Changing Child Support Guidelines: One State at a Time
Submitted by Matt on Wed, 2013-10-09 15:03
Article here. Excerpt:
'Will Connecticut policy makers listen to testimony supporting shared parenting?
Tuesday, October 15 is your last opportunity to join near unanimous grass-roots support for important changes to Child Support Guidelines in Connecticut. People from all walks of life support the effort to have Connecticut change their Guidelines to recognize that both parents share in the financial decision making authority for their children.
On August 1, 2013, Massachusetts changed their Guidelines to actively encourage shared parenting and clarified that up to age 23 family courts have discretion in ordering child support and/or college contribution. National Parents Organization and our members succeeded in making these changes through our presentations at the child support hearings and our well written and researched testimony.'
- Log in to post comments
Comments
A quick bit of clarification before I email them
Before I go there and comment can you just confirm that I understood this correctly. In the US child welfare laws currently only force the father to pay child support so that if the mother buggers off there is no law in place to make her pay to help support the child ?
I have been meaning to read up on this subject for a while.
So in the article it is stating that this is one of the first states to make this equal ?
Dan, in the United States
Dan, in the United States child support laws are gender neutral. Mothers have been ordered to pay child support to fathers.
Generally the non-custodial parent pays to the custodial parent. Sure the custodial parent is most often the mother, but it doesn't have to be, and more fathers are getting full custody with support paid to them compared to years ago.
PS- What I described above is in divorce situations. I do beleive in some states, if children are born outside of marriage, then the mother has more rights to custody, but i'm not sure. I also think it's a state by state thing if a couple is not married.
It's custodial/resident parent vs non
The law doesn't refer to the mother or father as such. Different states vary and this causes a lot of confusion. In the US, there is no federally-recognized marriage or divorce. However, there were two recent US Supreme Court cases dealing with gay marriage. One handled the question of whether the federal gov't as an employer can withhold benefits to same-sex spouses of federal employees who were lawfully married in a state that permitted it, who would otherwise get them if they were opposite-sex spouses. The SC ruled the fed. gov't had to pay the benefits. The second recent case was much more significant. It was about whether any state had the right to deny the option of marriage to same-sex couples as a matter of "equal protection under the laws", a sort of blanket provision found in one of the US Constitution's amendments. The SC again found that no state could do that. These decisions were made this past summer. It's already reaped a windfall for divorce lawyers everywhere. :) Sorry, I'm being cynical.
Anyway, I'm digressing. To your question, most states' "family law" systems require or at least encourage judges to award either primary custody to one parent or, if "joint custody" is ordered, "primary residence". Any way you name it, it means one of the parents gets a claim on the other's income to some degree for some length of time ostensibly for the support of the child(ren). Problem is, the payer (gee, usually the father-- what a coincidence!) has no actual say how his ex is spending his (now her) money. She could be buying shoes, paintings, booze, weed, crack, whatever. There is no accounting of it. Secondly, the parent with the primary decision-making power around the kid(s) could decide to send one or more of them to a $50k+/yr. college and the "non-custodial parent" is not only just as on the hook for it as "the custodial parent" but may in fact be on the hook for all of it (by court decree) and allowed *nothing* to say about it-- even if the kid is 18 or older.
This is what passes for post-matrimonial "justice" most times around these parts.
"Secondly, the parent with
"Secondly, the parent with the primary decision-making power around the kid(s) could decide to send one or more of them to a $50k+/yr. college and the "non-custodial parent" is not only just as on the hook for it as "the custodial parent" but may in fact be on the hook for all of it (by court decree) and allowed *nothing* to say about it-- even if the kid is 18 or older." -Matt
Matt, I don't really think this is true. Aside from abusive situations, typically both parents are awarded shared educational decision making along with shared medical decisions. So I doubt a father would agree to a collge he could not afford. College contributions are not subject to the same guidelines and calculations as child support, and if the state allows for it, they are added to the decree when the children are college age.
My state allows for "forced" college contributions from separating parents. This protects parents who split while the kids are getting ready to enter college or are already enrolled in college (so both parents were already involved in the decision). It considers what the parent(s) had already expected to pay. When parents of younger kids divorce it is not put into the decree until children reach college age, and it is not considered a necessity, so most parent write their own agreement when the time comes. Adding it to the decree makes it so one parent cant threaten the other with backing out.
In states like mine, if parents split when kids are young then don't agree when the kids reach college age, they could go to court over this , but it is extremely rare because, according to my attorney, the parent would have to prove that there was a previous agreement to contribute, or prove that the parent has disposable income, but is withholding contributions out of spite. How many kids a parent has to potentially put through college is also considered. My attorney has never seen a parent forced to contribute to college.
PS- My ex was making over a million dollars per year when we were negotiating our parenting plan, and college contributions was the one thing I tried to secure since my state allows for it, but I could not because the children were too young. I was told to come back to court when the children are college age. Now my ex has blown through his money, so I doubt he will agree to contribute to our kid's college. When the time comes, I could take him to court and try to force him to contribute, but I doubt I would win.
Thanks
Thanks guys, appreciate you taking the time to explain that to me, it gives me the proper ammo when I contact them.