Conference quokka::non_custodial_parents

    Studies for women have determined that women who are the head
    of house hold are living just below or well below the poverty line.
    Also finding have determined that mens income increases when a divorce
    happens...... You as a man can go out and front a new car, motor cycle,
    fishing boat... all these toys whist your ex and the children live in
    poverty.
    
    A many other studies have determined to the contrair.
     

	If you want the real answers, you probably need to read the
legislative record.   But I have a couple of guesses and will offer
them.
    
.0  1. When determining the amount of child support, the CP gets to
.0     'knock off' the first $15,000 of their income (at least in Mass)
.0     Why is this?

	I see this as encouraging the custodial parent to get a job.
Part of anything a custodial parent earns get eaten up ... need clothes,
transportation, extra expense for meals, etc.   So, excluding the first
part, means child support doesn't get reduced until the custodial parent
starts moving up the economic ladder.
	A custodial parent at the low end of the wage scale needs as
much help as possible.   If you are at the high end, it's a drop in the
bucket.
	Just to make you feel a little better about Massachusetts,
I spoke with a lawyer in NH who informed me, that there when a custodial
parent works, the child support can increase !

    
.0  2. I am of the understanding that my child support payments cannot
.0     be used as a deduction for tax purposes, nor does the ex-spouse
.0     need to claim it as income. Once again, I don't understand the
.0     logic behind this.

	Ok, lets assume you are married.  You would spend x dollars
on support (food, shelter, clothing, allowance, etc) for your child, and
you would pay y% of x dollars as tax.
	Now you are divorced.   Since you are a good parent you still
want to support your child with the same x dollars.   The government still
needs their y% of the x dollars just as before.    Unless you change
tax brackets, the y% of the x dollars is the same you paid before.
If you changed brackets, maybe you should vote for a flat tax.
	If you and your ex can agree on how big x was and should continue
to be, that's great.   In some cases you and your ex can't agree to the
last penny on how much x was and should continue to be.    The state will
help you decide.
	So, as a quick handwave, this just maintains the status quo.
It's not perfect.

        You cannot take the deduction for the support or for the children
    unless the support papers explicitly state that you can.  So the
    CP gets the support _and_ the deduction.  Which brings up another
    question.  If they determine it takes so much to raise a child, then
    why is the IRS deduction so low?

    As for the rest of it, "fair", has nothing to do with it.  The main
    purpose is "who can was soak the most money out of to make keep
    the state coffers filled, keep them off the welfare rolls, etc".
    Despite what legislatures say,  if you look at what they do
    (if they are so interested in the child, then why aren't they 
    nearly as interested in the child's visitation rights) you'll see
    what I mean.

    Which brings up the next question, does not the "best interests of 
    the child" include living with the parent most capable of supplying
    the child's financial needs?

    fred();

    John,
    
    Being fair and logical has nothing whatsoever to do with it. That's
    like expecting justice.
    
    And if you think child support covers it, then you have more surprises 
    on the way.

    
    
    	re -1
    
    	More surprises coming? Oh no, I hope they are pleasant surprises!
    
    	If someone woulda told me what divorce was like in Mass., I never
    	would have believed them. Logic and fairness got thrown out the
    	window *way back*...it's like living some horrible nightmare. I
    	have found out that the court's favorite word to fathers is
    	"PAY!". They don't seem too interested in anything they can't put
    	a dollar amount to, and apply their usurious formulas to.
    

    re .5
    
    Did they attach your pay ? They did mine and I'm trying to
    figure if that's standard procedure. Because it took 4 weeks
    from court order to wage attachment they (DOR) assume I'm
    guilty of not paying child support for 4 weeks. Just a few 
    days ago I got hate mail from the DOR telling me what they are
    going to do to me if I don't pay money I don't owe. On page
    4 of the hate mail they give me the option of proving I don't
    owe any money, how nice. I haven't yet decided if it's time
    for armed revolt.
    
    Mike

    When she goes on AFDC they asked her if there was an arrearage, she
    said there was, so now he has to prove there isn't.
    DOR is Very messed up, they can't add and don't believe the computer!
    I just got a letter from them to take my ex to court, the amount was
    2000 more than he owed, I called them and told them. At first they said
    "just sign it" when I objected, they said to sign it and "put a little
    sticky note on it saying how much you think he owes".  My figures and
    the comuter figures are the same, I have no idea where they got their
    figures.
     The best way around haing them not take your income tax money is to 
    always be owing money to the IRS, don't let them take so much out
    (claim fewer dependents or whatever)
    
    Sharon
    

    That's one of the other nice things about MA divorce - you are guilty
    by accusation or their incompetence (no evidence required) and have to 
    prove your innocence (no evidence acceptable).

    I have cancelled checks and a notorized letter from my ex stating
    that I don't owe her any back support. I'm only sending the notorized
    letter as evidence for the DOR review. That way when they lose the 
    evidence I can quickly send new evidence. Maybe they can get it right 
    in 2 tries.
    
    Mike

    
    	Even though it is more convenient, I find it insulting that the
    	state can determine that my pay must be attached for child 
    	support. It's my money, I earn it, and I am fully capable of
    	satisfying my financial obligations.
    
    	Ask them to set aside a portion of the c/s payment for the child's
    	college or whatever (to make sure the cp isn't blowing it away on
    	silly stuff) and see what happens.
    
    

    
    Send them the evidence with return receipt requested.  Better yet,
    send it to them via your lawyer so you have someone who can say,
    "We sent them this, and this, and this", etc.  Then if they
    go ahead and prosecute, you can haul them into Federal court on
    count of they should now know better and are just maliciously
    harassing and prosecuting you.

    fred();

    
    I've had some very bad experiences with the NH dept of child support.
    On two occasions they have accused me of being behind on child 
    support. One of the times they threatened to send me to jail.
    I have never missed a CS payment in 8+ years. They were wrong both
    times.  I had to send them copies of a years worth of CS checks
    and my former sent them a letter saying I was never behind.
    They finally agreed with me and the threat was dropped.
    
    Next time it happens I will send them a bill for the time I have 
    to spend copying checks etc. at $40 p/h.  And I will take them to 
    court if they don't pay.  For all of us who pay CS the lesson is
    to keep meticulous records and don't be intimidated by them if you
    know you're right. 
                                            Bill

    
    All this anguish is because men don't organize and fight the heavy 
    handed laws that victimize dads and their children. 
    Women *do* organize.  You guys should go to your state legislature
    and see how effectively women organize.  
    I was there for four years fighting to help dads see their children.
    
                             Bill

    
    re .18 
    
    Ditto.  I blame men as much as women these days for the sorry state
    of custody/visitation/support/divorce. 
    
    fred();

    Hello,
    
    I just returned from Canada last Friday. I learned that in Canada,
    Gov't allows father or mother who pays child support may deduct them
    for tax write-off. For those custodial parents, they have to claim them
    as incomes. Why can't we do that process in here?
    
    d
    

    
    Because women have a better lobby than men do.
    
    fred();