Why Parenting Time Motions Fail and Child Support

Lary Holland writes "An overview of why parenting time motions are more likely to fail than child support motions are to succeed. Short concise statement of a major issue surrounding bias in the family courts.

After a Friend of the Court Citizen Advisory Committee (Michigan FOC) meeting an attorney indicated that it seemed that their parenting time motions seem to fail more frequently than child support motions succeed. This was a brilliant observation and I wanted to take a quick moment and tell you why."

Click "Read more..." for more

For every three dollars ($3.00) that your local court spends on Child Support Enforcement the court receives two dollars ($2.00) by way of federal block grant money. Additionally to make up the difference of the remaining one dollar balance the local courts have been able to use what is known as federal incentive grants from the federal government, which has made it possible to “profit” from operating a “successful” child support enforcement program. An immense gain by the state is to be had by operating a "successful" child support enforcement program which means that a child cannot have substantially equal time with both parents. In order to maximize federal money the states create the appearance of an absentee parent for purposes of the Child Support Enforcement welfare program. Successful also means maximizing the number of participants the state has in its Child Support Enforcement welfare program by including the middle-class at the sole expense of the U.S. Tax Payer.

See 42 USC 655; “Payment to States”;

See 42 USC 658a; “Incentive payments to States”;

In a parenting time conflict, there is disincentive to allow children to have substantially equal time with their parents because then the parents do not fit wholly into the above welfare program model as being absent. The more parenting time provided, typically, child support is reduced or abated. A reduction in participants is a reduction in the justification of federal monies to the state. Normally the reduction of expenditures is encouraged by government but in this case the oppositeholds true because there is a profit derived from the excess influx of funds. Because of lack of eligibility requirements there is immense waste in the new Child Support Enforcement Beuracracy. In 2006 alone, 4.2 BILLION of our Social Security Fund, nationally, is being invested into this program which is a huge disincentive for the states to allow substantially equal parenting time with both parents.

The huge mass of money out of your social security also is the reason that the State is so eager to incorporate all the middle-class into their Child Support Enforcement Welfare programs; that means higher support awards and an appearance of more need for federal money now that there is widespread expanded group participation.

The new welfare abuser is not the people, but the states who have shaped their participant numbers to create the appearance of need for a program that lacks eligibility requirements. The reality is that there are many fit, willing, and competent parents that are trapped in a welfare system against their will and they are being prevented from parenting their children because the state wants to maximize their federal funding and make them look absent.

Very Truly Yours,

/s/ /s/

Lary Holland

5180 Cedar Lake Rd.

Oscoda, MI 48750

_________________

Lary Holland

http://www.laryholland.org/serendipity

http://360.yahoo.com/laryholland@sbcglobal.net


http://standuptoday.blogspot.com


http://www.removethesepeople.org"?

NOTICE: This story was migrated from the old software that used to run Mensactivism.org. Unfortunately, user comments did not get included in the migration. However, you may view a copy of the original story, with comments, at the following link:

http://news.mensactivism.org/articles/06/04/02/219210.shtml