~ Facebook Event ~
Here are four of the most critical flaws of the current child-support system.
The system is outdated.
The child-support system was originally a bipartisan policy reform designed to serve divorced parents who were steadily employed. But the system was established nearly 40 years ago, and is based on outdated stereotypes that viewed Mom as a housewife and Dad as the sole breadwinner.
The system makes it particularly tough on low-income fathers.
29 percent of families in the system live below the federal poverty line. Many fathers sincerely want to do right by their children, but simply don’t have the means to do so. That becomes a very slippery slope for a lot of dads.
When unpaid child-support payments accumulate, this often snowballs into another issue: parental alienation. Research has shown that men with outstanding child-support debts tend to be less involved in their children’s lives. Some even find themselves incarcerated over unpaid payments.
The “deadbeat dad” myth.
Another stereotype feeding many of the problems with the current child-support laws is that of the deadbeat dad.
The current system fixates on enforcement and ignores involvement.
The core of the problem with modern child-support laws is that there is too much emphasis on enforcement and not enough focus on getting fathers involved in their children’s lives.
There is no shortage of evidence showing that shared parenting helps offset the negative effects of divorce. While it is important for them to receive adequate financial support, it is arguably even more essential to have quality time with both Mom and Dad.
Source: Child support needs to catch up to reflect new roles for fathers, say experts | Children’s Rights
Related articles
Advertisements
[…] Source: Child support needs to catch up to reflect new roles for fathers, say experts | Children’s Rights … […]
LikeLiked by 4 people
Shared parenting should always be the starting point. Plus there are new tests out there for psychopathy/narcissism/sociopathy that can show with a brain scan a parent that is a psychopathy and help the courts figure out where the liars/abusers actually are.
The real problem with the brain scan/MRI/pet scan test is that if the judge or the lawyers/child rep/child atty, etc. were to take it, it would likely show they are not qualified either to be involved in these cases.
According to experts (psychiatrists/psychD’s/neuro scientists) all of judges and lawyers have a higher chance of being a psychopath than those in the general population.
The problem with the court system is actually that, and all of doctors, nurses, lawyers, judges, police and teachers should be required to take brain scans/MRI’s/pet scans for psychopathy and then we need to get them out of those roles.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Brigade: Is it Support or Extortion? Protest Florida Child Support System – https://www.brigade.com/positions/16575/reasons/152775
Most judges are breaking the law as they please on child support by denying due process, imputing income only to men, forcing you (men) into jobs they don’t want and many other violations of constitutional rights. This is intimidation to force you to effectively become a slave to the state and your ex-wife. All this is hidden under the claim this is in the “best interest of the children”. Who could argue with what’s best for the children is maximum access to both parents? Most fathers want to support their children in ways other than financially by having them in their home. Child support is effectively a blackmail or extortion system whereby the state takes you children unconstitutionally, and then uses that excuse to charge you extortion fees weekly for the privilege of NOT having your children! You will find here many pages of true stories and reference material. Child Support guidelines would/should meet the following criteria: 1. Child support should only be allowed when a father or mother abandon their child and refuse to take care of them and the parents can not agree among themselves what that should be. It should never be awarded if the parent wants to care for their children for 50% of the time. This is now proven better for children but the courts are still operating of “scientific research” from the 1950’s. Giving custody to the other parent (illegally) is no reason to subject a parent to child support. 2. Child support should not create the huge financial incentive it does for the custodial parent to get a free ride on the other parent for 18-23 years. Child support would be capped at some reasonable and necessary level of expenses per child and shared equally by both parents, or in proportion to earnings. When a divorce happens it is ridiculous and unfair to expect the standard of living of two households to remain the same when the same income now supports both. The second parent must work more, as the first parent was likely already working full-time time. The second parent can not be made to work twice as much! 3. Child support should be about the incremental cost of the children, not including the living expenses of the custodial spouse. Child support would take into account the real costs and the percentage of time the children spend with each parent. Child support should NOT be a function of a parents income, but a function of what a reasonable and married parent would actually spend on the children (Massachusetts imply families spend 80% of their take-home pay on their children by charging dad 40% of take-home pay in child extortion.) Taking away a parents right to decide what to spend on their child after divorce denies them a right they have in marriage and creates a class of people that are discriminated against by this artificially created classification. http://www.causes.com/causes/804504-american-fa
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLiked by 1 person