[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Why Parenting Time Motions Fail and Child Support
posted by Matt on 04:06 PM April 2nd, 2006
Feature Submission 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"

Mass. Family Courts Expose | MSN and "Marie Claire": Women Must Trade Sex for Food  >

  
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
"successful" must mean corupt (Score:1)
by Ron Rutgers on 08:24 AM April 3rd, 2006 EST (#1)
The courts go well beyond interfering with parenting time. Leeching off the taxpayer is an advantage to obtain custody. Welfare fraud is enabled by the courts, to create bogus arrears. Child support agencies, when aware of the crime, treat it as a no interest loan. But then these agencies are rackets not above extortion by claiming phony arrears. So what is the end game. Does best interest othe child actually mean property of the state.
Proof!!!! (Score:1)
by Davidadelong on 01:03 PM April 3rd, 2006 EST (#2)
So, here is proof that our government uses the current paradigm of divisionary tactics of the genders to oppress, and profit off of our misery. Not to mention the cottage industries that have sprouted up to support this enslavement of United States Citizens by our own government. Gee, who am I going to vote for? In reality it doesn't really make any difference now does it? Again we need to take back that which is ours! As Citizens we should have the right to "Govern Our Selves!" The hell with this elitist system that has less respect for its' "Citizens" than they do for their pet Dogs! "It is a good day to die!"
[an error occurred while processing this directive]