| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 253.1 | Error about details to telegram! | CIMNET::LUISI | | Tue Jul 26 1988 16:04 | 8 |
|
You will not be able to get the details of the telegram as I mentioned
in the orignal note. You can only dispatch the telegram from that
number. However; if you call the 800-722-FAIR number you will get
a copy of the August issue of American Fatherhood which details
the content of these telgrams.
|
| 253.2 | Baloney. | WOODRO::M_SMITH | Building a Better Yesterday | Tue Jul 26 1988 16:08 | 17 |
| Why is it unfair to make a father fulfill his obligations to his
children? (Certainly an amendment to ensure fathers get full
visitation rights also needs to be part of this legislation.)
The flip side of this issue is that if a father reneges on his support
payments, his children may live in poverty on welfare or be supported
by someone else. Where is the fairness in that? In the one case, we
all support this person's children via our tax dollars, in the other
someone else, like a stepfather, or grandparents, provide the support.
Like it or not, a mans responsibility is to his children. Period.
No one will ever convince me otherwise.
Having said all this, the mother has the same responsibilities in
those situations where the father gains custody.
Mike
|
| 253.3 | Who said fathers should'nt pay? | CIMNET::LUISI | | Tue Jul 26 1988 16:44 | 16 |
|
Where did I once imply that fathers should not be responsible for
paying their child support? I for one have been paying it faithfully
for nine years. I don't need a bill passed making it legal to have
my wages garnishes just to satisfy a beaurocratic amendment.
If a father fails on his responsiblity to pay child support the
system [in a fair and un-biased way] should deal with it. And thats
true for those who interfere with visitation as well.
This bill, if passed will make it legal for my ex to demand my support
payments come directly to her from my pay check even though she
can deny me visitation of my children and I would have to prove
it by taking her to court.
That's balony...
|
| 253.4 | Good for you! (sincerely) | WOODRO::M_SMITH | Building a Better Yesterday | Tue Jul 26 1988 17:04 | 23 |
| re: -.3
I congratulate you on living up to your responsibilities. My response
wasn't meant to suggest that you did otherwise. Unfortunately far too
many men don't. It is because too many don't that makes this
bill, or one like it necessary. Perhaps a more realistic one is
one where only a parent who refuses to pay come under this provision.
I speak from personal experience in that my wife's ex-husband made
exactly three support payments for his three children. My wife
and I did the rest. Bring him to court? What a joke. He not
only wasn't required to make up his past obligations but the judge
reduced his future payments as well. That didn't matter, he never
made those either. So much for justice from the courts.
I do agree that legislation is also needed to correct abuses against
child visitation rights. Far too many mothers use their children as a
weapon against their ex-spouse. I have no patience with those people
either.
Mike
|
| 253.5 | Do you support a welfare state? | ANT::BUSHEE | Living on Blues Power | Wed Jul 27 1988 08:36 | 19 |
|
RE: .4
This bill is not the fix all it may sound. From what I've read,
all children of a divorce would be placed on welfare and the
amount the custodial parent receieves would be the same based
on the number of children. The non-custodial parent would still
pay a percentage of their gross income into the welfare system,
with any amount higher than that awarded the custodial parent
going into the welfare general account. Now, isn't that really
fair, for someone like myself who paid his support payments
(and still does) without missing a single one for the last eight
years!! To the system, the fact that I have custody of one of
my children would make no difference, all they would see (under
the original bill, not sure on ammended one) would be that I
am paying support for one child.
G_B
|
| 253.6 | You convinced me! | WOODRO::M_SMITH | Building a Better Yesterday | Wed Jul 27 1988 09:14 | 18 |
|
re: -.5
If what you say is true then I guess this bill is definitely not the
way to go. This topic, particularly in the somewhat hysterical manner
in which it was expressed in the base note, pressed a very hot button
with me and unfortunately I may have responded in kind.
However, I do believe that more needs to done in forcing those parents
who are supposed to pay child support and don't, to attend to their
responsibilities. As I have said all along, I also believe that
the non-custodial parent needs to have a tool that will force those
parents who interfere with visitation rights. The two must go hand
in hand.
Mike
|
| 253.7 | | ANT::BUSHEE | Living on Blues Power | Wed Jul 27 1988 11:31 | 30 |
|
There are laws in EVERY state to deal with non-support as
well as visitation issues. What we need is to have these
laws already on the books equally enforced!! The old days
of skipping state to advoid support payments is no longer
an option, as most states have agreed this is an offense
which does qualify for extradition. What needs to be done
is to have the judges required by law to enforce divorce/
support orders. In some cases they do, I worked with a guy
before who didn't pay while in Massachusetts, the order was
from New York or Jersey (forgot which now). He thought he
was home free, that is till one day the Ma. state police
showed up to arrest him. He did 6 months, had to pay back
support while maintaning current payments. If this was
common place for non-payers, I'll bet anything people would
be very prompt with their payments.
The answers never lies in having any state angency due automatic
wage garneshess. This type of system never aids the ones it's
designed to help, it just adds extra burdens and pressures to
an already emotional situation. Plus it also adds extra cost
to people who pay on time, all the time!! (You don't think
any welfare system runs for free do you?) Also, don't forget,
to handle the type of work load that would be added by this
bill, either the tax-payer or the support paying parent will
have to pay for the added cost. As it is now, welfare workers
can't handle their current case loads, how can they take on
more without adding additional case workers?
G_B
|
| 253.8 | Glad you see the light.... | CASV01::SALOIS | Fatal Attraction is holding me fast | Wed Jul 27 1988 14:57 | 24 |
|
WOODRO::M_SMITH
Mike,
Whew!! Talk about hot buttons!! Good thing I make it a practice
to read all the replies before I reply. Reply .3 damn near made
me want to scream!!
My opinion is that non-custodial parents who default on their
support payments, should have their wages attached. But to blanket
attach every single non-custodial parent's wages, is not only
immoral but illegal!! Or, I should say it should be illegal.
What about innocent before being proven guilty?? In .0, the
statements show that the bill would include ALL fathers. So,
even those who would pay support on time are treated as if they
wouldn't. Is this fair? How about if the bank that holds your
mortgage automatically deducted your monthly bill?
Yes, there are irresponsible parents out there, neglecting the
child support, but I sure as hell don't want to pick up the tab
for them, and I also don't want to be associated as one.
Gene
|
| 253.9 | The proposed bill should be our hot button | CIMNET::LUISI | | Wed Jul 27 1988 17:31 | 52 |
|
Ala.. Why my orginal note [may have been percieved] as hysterical.
I guess its ludicrous legislature like the amended welfare bill
being proposed that hits my hot buttons.
A. There ought to be a quick, simple, fair way for spouses entitled
to child support to recieve it. The cruds who intentionally don't
pay their support nor care about the impact that has on their children
should suffer the heaviest legal action.
B. There ought to be an equally quick, simple, and fair way for
non-custodial parents who are having their visitation manipulated,
stopped, interfered with, etc., etc. resolved.
C. As in life, and in these two situations there are always extreme
cases with extenuating circumstances that in some way justifies
both actions. There should be an impartial committee that can quickly
look at it and help to resolve it with the childrens, as well as
both parents well being in mind.
This current welfare bill does neither. Worse it only addresses
child support with a mandatory withholding after 1994 except for
cases that fall under the child enforcement agencies which would
be in effect immediatly. The proposal to have the visitation
enforsement provision included [which it was not] came from Sen
Dave Durenberger [R-MN] and Sen Charles Grassley [R-IA].
The telegrams F.A.I.R. is recommending is to address these issues
currently not contained as part of the welfare bill. And they are
being sent directly to those Senators that oppose these changes.
I have already sent my $$$ to have these telgrams sent because I
beleive they are needed and I wholeheartedly disagree with a bill
which would require mandatory witholding even to those parents who
faitfully pay support but a bill that does not contain visitational
enforment language.
I opened this note because I am unaware of how many people who read
this conference are even aware of the bill or of the organization
called F.A.I.R.
As a member I plan on continuing, as time permits, in putting in
information like this. The more people that become of aware of
this and more people that participate like I am doing the more likely
it will be in the future for fairness to be a part of the welfare
and divorse laws that govern our [paychecks]
As a faithfull father to his children and his responsibilities in
making support payments I see no reason for a federal bill to be
passed which would make it legal to have my support payments withheld
from my pay.
Bill
|
| 253.10 | All Fathers??? | SSDEVO::YOUNGER | Just remember one thing | Wed Jul 27 1988 18:41 | 4 |
| Does this bill really specify ALL FATHERS? What about fathers with
custody? Does it apply to ALL MOTHERS without custody?
Elizabeth
|
| 253.11 | Children are not really the issue | SSDEVO::YOUNGER | Just remember one thing | Wed Jul 27 1988 18:55 | 17 |
| It occurs to me that the welfare of the children is not really the
concern on the support issue.
There are *no* laws that determine what percentage of a non-divorced
parent's income must go to the children. Except in drastic cases
of neglect, it is left to the lifestyles of the individuals. For
example, if Mom earns $15,000/year, and Dad earns $30,000/year,
there are no laws that say that 1/3 of the income $15,000/year *must*
be spent on the children. If they are living in a non-condemned
(that doesn't mean that it's not condemnable!) house, the children
are adequately nourished, and they have at least rags to wear for
clothing, there are no laws stopping them from spending the remainder
on themselves. And I would be curious to know how many families
spend that much money on the children.
Elizabeth
|
| 253.12 | More Law/More Tax | RUTLND::KUPTON | Goin' For The Top | Thu Jul 28 1988 08:50 | 30 |
| The intention of such bills that go before legislators is usually
good. The main intent is to see that children are not mistreated.
Too often, the money that is paid by a father for child support
is not spent on children, it's spent by the mother for "other needs".
This is not true for ALL mothers.
I can think of nothing more depressing than a father going to pick
up the children he loves and finding another man living with his
ex-wife in her and the children's apt. or house. She comes to the
door with hand outstretched as the children leave for the weekend.
As soon as they've left, she cashes the check and she and the man
go out for a night of dinner and dance. The child support becomes
expendable income rather than improved child care.
The flip side of most liberal (democrat) legislation is that it
usually means the government increases the bureaucracy with a new
department that can't enforce the bill. The cost of such a bill
as mentioned earlier would be prohibitive. I honestly think this
would be another pork barrell law. The only way it could work would
be to have the payments go to the gov't and then the gov't issue
a check. Now we all know what happens when Congress has a dollar
in their pocket (theirs or not), they think they have five. I think
this also would be a tax burden on single people (male and female)
and middle aged adults w/o children at home building a retirement
nest.
And Bradley is the odds-on favorite for the Democratic ticket in
'92 if the Duke loses.
Ken
|
| 253.13 | This Bill Effects "All" Divorsing Parents | CIMNET::LUISI | | Thu Jul 28 1988 10:33 | 28 |
|
Reply from .0 to .10 REF: "all Father's" question.
My male side is showing! As I understand the proposal. Divorse
decrees going into effect after 1/1/94 would require the non-custodial
"parent" [the one paying child support] to pay via an automatic
withholding. I'm not sure of the specifics as to what happens to
the $$$ after it's withheld. Does it go to an agency which then
forwards the $$$ or does it go into a direct deposit account that
the custodial parent draws upon? I don't know.
I did interpret this however. The custodial parent can waive the
withholding requirement by signing a statement and recieve the $$$
directly from the non-custodial parent.
I must point out that in those relationships when ex- husband/wife
have reached beyond their personal issues and can cooperate regarding
support, visitation, custody, etc. etc. this proposed bill and
amendments become a moot point.
It is in the vast majority of cases where they do not that our state,
federal, and combined legal, judicial systems need to be re-vamped
to provide equal treatment [under the law] for divorsed parents
with dependent children.
Once again; this bill does not do that.
Bill
|
| 253.14 | Lets keep this Note on the subject! | CIMNET::LUISI | | Thu Jul 28 1988 11:40 | 119 |
|
As the orginator of this note I would like to ask if the dialogue
is going to continue it address specifically the note and replies
shared regarding the proposed amended federal welfare bill.
Wheather support payments go directly to support the children should
be the topic of another NOTE. Whether goverment agencies should
be involved in this or not is also another topic.
I will say this about why the federal goverment has chosen to get
involved in this issue.
Of the 20 million or so divorsed w/children parents out there a
pecentage [And I intentionally have left out a number] of parents
required to pay child support do not. I'm going to change the word
parent at this point to Father since the vast majority of this
situation has the children living with the mother and the father
paying support with either little or no custodial responsibility.
Yes; it is true. A percentage of father's have abandoned their
children and their financial responsibilities. The reasons abound
in the hundreds for why this happens. But result; for many of the
unfortunate mother's with children is that they can not provide
for their children and become wards of the state. A truly unfortunate
situation. This is the principle reason the States and the Federal
government have become involved. They do not want the welfare system
escalated when there are so many father's out there who should be
responsible for support.
Now what has happened over the years as this issue has become heated
to many have become obscure to many feminist lobbying organization
a simple means of ax-grinding.
Here are a few things that I am aware of that have happened.
1. Fathers who change states of residence to avoid paying support
are finding it harder to hide because the states are enforcing
collection regardless of where the parents live. And in addition
mother's can request assistence in collection with having to sue
their husbands in the state in which their husband has absconded
to. This I think is great. But on the other hand there is no
legislation protecting or helping the father when his wife absconds
to another state with his children thereby preventing or impeding
his visitation.
2. States are beginning to adopt a min/max support structure for
newly divorsing parents [recommended by the fed 28% of gross for
1 dependant 38% of gross for 2 as I recall] regardless of what the
legal debate is in court and regardless of the husbands debt. The
thought being that the more the father is required to pay the less
the chances of the children becoming wards of the state.
This of course is hogwash but my only advise. If you're getting
divorsed hope that both of you can arrive at an equitable settlement
outside of court and have it uncontested.
3. Stiffer penalties, garnishing of wages, jail sentences, etc.
are being imposed on those offenders who continually fail in their
support obligations especially when the children are wards of the
state. And the states are cooperating with eachother to make this
happen. As a result of the this the states and the fed. are passing
into law legislature that would make it harder for offenders to
get away with it. This bill that is currently in the house is one
example.
Unfortunatly many femmenist organizations see this as an opportunity
to prove to the male dominated judicial and legislative systems
another example of how women are getting screwed by their
non-supportive ex-husbands. Any these femminist organizations are
very powerfull. After all, women have been discriminated upon in
our society for a very long time. It is unfortunate however that
these organzations are taking such an extreme and disproportionate
stand on this issue.
I'm not saying that the femminist lobby should not support legislation
that would help improve family relations and get women with children
off welfare and get non-paying fathers to pay. I support that also.
What I am saying is that in their zest to make this happen they
have trumpted up the numbers to make all of us fathers look like
the bad guy. Trumpted up in the following ways.
1. Trumping up the % of fathers who do not meet their finacial
obligations so as to make it look like its the vast majority of
us. 75-85%. When that can't be true.
2. Trumping up charges that a vast number of fathers are abusive
to their children when visiting and in amny cases sexual offendors.
This strong lobbying and outright lies have gotton the ear of the
legilative and judicial systems. You are seeing the result of this
in the current divorse laws and in this upcoming welfare bill.
The organization called F.A.I.R. [national Father's Org] is trying
to turn that tide and show that we are all not bad guys. That in
fact the vast majority of us are faithfull fathers and payors of
child support. FAIR is trying to balance the scales. Not protect
the blatant offendors but to put fairness into the system by supporting
and proposing fair legilation that looks at both sides of the coin.
Visitation is an example.
If it wer'nt for FAIR I would not have known about this upcoming
bill and I would not have sent my telgrams opposing the language
and making reccomendations on how it should read.
There has been a lot of dialogue on this NOTE over the past week
but I havn't heard one person say they were going to call FAIR's
toll free number and get more information and/or to call and send
a telegram themselves. I guess we all can be a lot of talk; or
some of us can be a lot of action. If you think the system is fair
towards fathers than don't do anything. But if think it un-fair
to fathers like myself who are not offendors that you can.
You can join FAIR. You can send a telegram today.
FAIR's toll free is 800-722-FAIR the telgram # is 302-697-2537
Bill "A Concerned participating Father"
|
| 253.15 | Warning! Court precedence is Set?!? | COMET::HENNINGER | | Fri Jun 23 1989 09:30 | 37 |
| The potential exists now for a custodial parent to lose those rights.
I wish to point out that within the state of Georgia, IF
1. a child is sent to visit in accordance with another state's court order,
the original state where neither parent is currently living
2. the child and the non-custodial parent refuse to follow through on the
prior travel arrangements
3. the custodial parent takes the non-custodial to court for return
THEN a precedence now exists for the trial judge to determine:
1. GA may take jurisdiciton in contravention to the UCCJA.
2. The non-custodial parent may be awarded custody without ever filing
a motion for change.
This was essentially the determination in my case before Judge Land, now
retired PTL, and upheld by the appeals court.
On principle, I would want to appeal to the state supreme court; however, the
$10K+ cost seems too formidable to bear.
I have contacted several father's rights groups and have until June 29th to
file a notice of intent to appeal.
At this point, I am looking hard at what my real feelings are:
1. Do I really want to force my rights on my sons who react so negatively to
me ( hanging up after saying 'I'm busy.', etc)?
2. I fear for the safety and development of my 6 year old from my second
if either son were to return for a visit. She is the only one with a positive
self image of the four between the three marriages.
3. My ex refuses to cooperate on visitation. Last Christmas cost $2000 in
court and lawyer fees alone; not counting emotional costs on all. And she
has not responded to letter requests for this summer.
4. I have recommended my sons should S**T or get off the pot, by filing for
an adoption by their stepfather if I and their stepmother are so bad.
Don who believes the laws exist to direct our dealings fairly but who finds the
courts against him when he files an action
|