| Top Story |
Child Support Guidelines Make Fathers ATM
By Erin Johnson, Member, Massachusetts Executive Committee, Fathers and Families
The formula
for the Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines is excessive and flawed.
I am a divorced mother of two daughters who mediated my child support
with my ex-husband. We did it so that we had EQUAL income in order
that we could provide EQUAL homes for our children. Why? Because it
was the right and moral thing to do.
Massachusetts
hides behind the premise that these guidelines are in the best interest
of the children. The application of these guidelines does NOT follow
its own principles, the main one being # 2 “to encourage joint parental
responsibility for child support”. There’s nothing “joint” about these
guidelines. If we had gone through the Child Support Guidelines, my
children’s father would not have been able to provide a comfortable home
for his children when they were with him and little money to entertain
them. There is no way that my ex-husband and myself spend 30% of our
income to support our children each year and my kids live pretty well.
This
system treats fathers as no more than ATM machines, incapable of making
financial decisions for their children. My ex-husband has his
shortcomings, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t a good father, capable of
making financial decisions for his kids. Fathers made competent
decisions on behalf of their children before divorce, so why is it that
the state deems men incompetent after divorce, empowering only the
mothers? Deciding what to spend on our children should be EVERY
parent’s right, not just mothers. The state of Massachusetts has taken
away that parenting right from fathers by giving mothers complete
financial control.
The
moms are the heroes, which further alienates the kids from dad because
all they know is that mom spends all the money on them and dad is always
broke. That dad lives in a dump that they are embarrassed to visit and
never has enough money to do things with them. They have no concept
that the money that mom spends is coming from dad. The monetary gains
that mothers achieve under these guidelines, coupled with free legal
aid, encourage mothers to demand full custody in our court system. I am
confident that there would be a significant decrease in this disturbing
trend if the guidelines were adjusted to reflect fair child support
amounts for each party.
Divorce
is financially devastating, but the guideline’s principle # 1 “to
minimize the economic impact on the child’s standard of living” is
unrealistic. Financial upsets happen in MANY households, for various
reasons, and families get through it just fine. Having to adjust a
child’s standard of living is not a bad thing. It teaches them to
appreciate what they have. Was my divorce financially devastating?
Did we have to downgrade our lifestyles? You bet. And our kids were
not damaged by it. Disappointed at times, yes, but not damaged.
What’s more important to a child, Ugg boots and smartphones or a loving
relationship with their father and mother? What will do more
emotional damage to a child, having to move into a smaller home or
having to witness the deterioration of their father’s pride and
well-being, and having little time with their exhausted fathers because
they have to work three jobs just to stay afloat?
Our
girls are smart, strong, capable young ladies. Why? Because they see
their mother working and taking responsibility. They see the financial
contribution of BOTH parents, not just mine. They see their mother and
father as EQUAL parents. As a working mother, I am insulted that the
State allows mothers to bleed these fathers dry under the cop-out of
doing what’s best for the children, with absolutely NO requirement that
the money is actually being spent on the children.
The
guideline’s ineffective modification language falls on deaf ears with
our probate courts. If a married couple faces a job loss, the entire
family must adjust to the financial impact. But in a divorced family,
this state does everything in its power to push the burden only to the
father. The “Attribution of Income” language fails to acknowledge the
main driver when listing the “ relevant factors for the Court to
consider, which is the “unemployment rate” in a troubled economy.
I
have two master’s degrees and make a decent salary, but if I lost my
job, I would not be able to replace my current income in this economy. I
would be faced with a severe pay cut if I could even get another
similar job. Why is it that the court system is quick to impute an
“earning capacity” to the father, yet fails to impute the same for the
mother of school aged children who is capable of working, yet chooses
not to? These men did not sign up to be their spouse’s father too, but
these unfair child support amounts are causing just that.
When
my ex-husband lost his job of 30 years, we all tightened our belts.
If I had gone through the Massachusetts court system, he would have been
forced to continue paying the same child support amount because he
would have been deemed “capable” of earning his former salary. Does
this committee really believe that a 40-50 year old man, trying to find a
similar paying job in a saturated job market, competing with college
graduates that will take the job for much less, is “capable” of earning
the same salary he accumulated over 30 years with one company? Does
this committee really believe that a construction worker who loses his
job in a market that has hundreds of unemployed workers sitting on the
bench is “capable” of earning more? Does this committee really believe
that the self-employed landscaper who lost half of his customers in this
poor economy is capable of earning more?
Additionally,
the guidelines inclusion of “pre-divorce” overtime earnings needs to be
removed. The physical demands of overtime work cannot be sustained as
fathers age, especially in the labor trades. This requirement borders
on slavery. I myself would not be able to sustain the overtime hours
that I worked in my younger years.
It
is my hope that this committee takes an honest and “unbiased” look at
this broken system and makes a real effort for real change to a system
that is clearly not working.
When It Becomes About the Money, the Children Always Lose
By Rita Fuerst Adams, National Executive Director, Fathers and Families
Why should you care about Massachusetts reviewing its child support guidelines?
As
many of you know, according to Federal law, every state must review
its child support guidelines every four years. Fathers and Families
wants to work with vocal volunteers to be the voice for shared parenting
and gender equality at each state’s review.
This
week, the Massachusetts Trial Court completed its open hearings.
Fathers and Families members/activists voiced their opinions, told their
stories, and spoke for their children and families. Together we are
continuing to voice our opinions about the impact of the guidelines with
our legislators and the Chief Justice. Change in Massachusetts, or
any other state, may lead to change in your state.
Make
your children winners no matter which state you live in. Fathers and
Families wants to work with you and other committed volunteers when the
child support guidelines are reviewed in your state. As we gain
strength in Massachusetts, we are taking what we learn and using it to
be successful in other states.
Do you know when the guidelines will be reviewed in your state? Contact us.
|
|
|
| In the News |
Arizona CPS Caseload Skyrockets
Murderer Mom Gets Visitation
Fox, ABC, and NBC Premier Anti-Dad Shows
Restraining Order Helps Mom Murder Children
Slate Gets It Wrong on Paternity Fraud
UK: Law Commission Recommends Deep Cuts to Spousal Support
Infant Son Beaten to Death While Father’s Pleas Go Unheeded
Printer for Sale
A member recently donated a used, excellent condition Kyocera Taskalfa
550c color multifunction system with scanner, fax board, and
saddle-stitch finisher. It prints, scans, copies, and faxes.
Specs:
- Print Speed: 55 pages per minute (black and color)
- Resolution: 600 x 600 dpi (copy and print) / 8 Bit Color Depth
- Max Monthly Duty Cycle: 225,000 pages
More information, specs, and photos are available at Kyocera’s website.
Price is negotiable. The money we receive will go towards our work reforming family law. Pickup only from Manchester, NH. Please spread the word to anyone you know who may be interested. Contact Rita Fuerst Adams.
Mission
Fathers and Families improves the lives of children and strengthens
society by protecting the child’s right to the love and care of both
parents after separation or divorce. We seek better lives for children
through family court reform that establishes equal rights and
responsibilities for fathers and mothers.
Vision
Fathers and Families’ vision is a society in which:
- Children are happier and more successful because their loving bonds are protected after parental separation or divorce:
- Children have a natural right to be nurtured and guided by both parents:
- Society treats fathers and mothers as equally important to the wellbeing of their children:
- Shared parenting after separation or divorce is the norm:
- The courts
arrange finances after separation or divorce so that both mothers and
fathers can afford to house and care for their children and themselves:
and
- Our society understands and respects the essential role of fathers.
Core Principles
Our core principles are:
- Shared
Parenting: Shared parenting protects children’s best interests and the
loving bonds children share with both parents after separation or
divorce.
- Parental
Equality: Equality between genders has been extended to every corner of
American society, with one huge exception: family courts and the related
agencies.
- Respect for
Human and Property Rights: The Supreme Court of the United States has
found that “the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of
their children... is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty
interests recognized by this Court.”
Fathers and Families
PO Box
270760
Boston,
Massachusetts 02127-0760
(617)
542-9300
www.fathersandfamilies.org
info@fathersandfamilies.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment