Irrational Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines
Dusty
Irrational Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines
by Hans Bader
January 02, 2009
Massachusetts has long had some of the most excessive child support
guidelines in the nation: for just one child, the father is ordered to pay
close to 25% of his gross income, or more than 35% of his after-tax income,
to the mother. This amount of money grossly exceeds the cost of raising a
child, and there's no obligation even to spend the money on the child,
rather than the mother. As a result, the father often has a disposable
income that is just a fraction of the income of the mother's household.
But excessive as the guidelines are, the state courts are now promulgating a
child-support schedule that radically increases the rates by 60 percent for
middle-class households where the father and mother make similar amounts
(like $40,000 each or $60,000 each). The guidelines are not
rationally-related to the costs of rearing children.
The new guidelines are harmful to children, not just their fathers. Children
spend up to a third of their time in their fathers' care, yet Massachusetts'
child support guidelines financially destroy many divorced fathers, leaving
them chronically broke and thus unable to provide their children a nice home
to live in during visitation. The state child support guidelines give
fathers little if any reduction in child support payments for the time and
money they spend caring for their children during extensive visitation, even
though such care reduces the child-care costs of the recipient mother and
increases the father's expenses.
This financial havoc can't be justified by claiming that divorced fathers
had it coming: most divorces in this country are no-fault divorces initiated
by wives, rather than husbands (wives initiate about two-thirds of all
divorces, according to data collected by the National Center for Health
Statistics, and the many studies reviewed by Sanford Braver of Arizona State
University in his 1998 book Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths).
It is also frankly sexist: unlike nearby states, like Maine and Connecticut,
where fathers have some realistic chance of getting primary or shared
custody, in Massachusetts, trial judges tend to award primary custody to
mothers over similarly-qualified fathers, even when the fathers are fit
parents who have been very actively involved in the lives of their children.
Everyone knows that these guidelines are intended to milk fathers to benefit
their ex-wives (and their divorce lawyers). Prominent divorce lawyers like
Richard Crouch have noted that in practice, child-support and spousal
support laws are often applied in a sexist fashion.
As excessive as the child-support guidelines are, alimony is often awarded
on top of it. Alimony is awarded in Massachusetts even to wives who have
committed adultery or engaged in domestic violence. (Most states award
alimony without regard to fault; a minority preclude alimony based on fault,
such as adultery; and some states that generally ignore fault still forbid
spouses who have perpetrated domestic violence to collect alimony. A few
states, like California, even award alimony to low-income husbands, but in
most states, courts are, in practice, much more willing to award alimony to
wives (even those who are quite capable of supporting themselves) than to
low-income husbands, even if the husband did something praiseworthy like
working to pay his wife's college bills).
I should note in closing that I am not divorced, have no child support
obligations, and no personal or family history of entanglement with the
family courts or divorce courts. My only connection to Massachusetts is
spending three years earning a degree at Harvard Law School, and reading
dozens of Massachusetts family-court cases. (Years ago, I also read the
child support guidelines of virtually every state).
DB
care expenses as women are incapable of taking on such a task. I now
realize that my father being a blue collar worker was the only one capable
of raising 3 children on his own, no woman could have accomplished that.
"Dusty" <No....@home.org> wrote in message
news:gml1pi$o3p$01$1...@news.t-online.com...
Ed
>
> I think it's only right that men should pay for the majority of all child
> care expenses as women are incapable of taking on such a task. I now
> realize that my father being a blue collar worker was the only one capable
> of raising 3 children on his own, no woman could have accomplished that.
>
What crap. It happens all the time, very literally.
Wars, disasters, car accidents, and other happenings have created
millions, possibly billions of widows throughout history. I have no idea
what percentage of them did or did not immediately remarry, but SOME
have undoubtedly raised their kids without a husband's income.
Ed Howdershelt - Abintra Press
Science Fiction & Semi-Fiction
http://www.AbintraPress.com
My Fictionwise Ratings: http://tinyurl.com/26v45
Shirts: http://abintrapress.netfirms.com/4boxes.htm
DB
"Ed" <au...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:498E96...@hotmail.com...
> DB wrote:
>>
>> I think it's only right that men should pay for the majority of all child
>> care expenses as women are incapable of taking on such a task. I now
>> realize that my father being a blue collar worker was the only one
>> capable
>> of raising 3 children on his own, no woman could have accomplished that.
>>
>
> What crap. It happens all the time, very literally.
> Wars, disasters, car accidents, and other happenings have created
> millions, possibly billions of widows throughout history. I have no idea
> what percentage of them did or did not immediately remarry, but SOME
> have undoubtedly raised their kids without a husband's income.
Surely you jest, women are far too feeble minded to get a real career or
good paying job be able to support themselves and their child. If a man
makes a woman get pregnant, I'm all in favor of making sure that man is
punished and he will pay for all that child's expenses including a house,
car, vacations and new clothes every month too.
Thank God we live in a country where the government protects women that
cannot fend for themselves.
I couldn't imagine any woman to work as hard as my father did, women are too
weak to look after themselves and need a man to care for them.
Dusty
news:uSFjl.3911$PE4...@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
ROTFLMAO!!
DB
Dusty, I see nothing funny about helping out the weaker sex. We know for
years they have claimed they are men's equals in every way, but it's obvious
they cannot possibly meet the demands of existing on they're own and leading
an independent life without the assistance of the government to give them a
hand out when ever they conceive a child.
The fact that the government has programs to help women in this manner is an
admission of failure for the Women's movement as it only confirms that women
can do nothing more than be stay at home mothers.
Women should be thankful to men for providing them a country that entitles
them to free financing for their living expenses. My father was a very
proud man, he would never have accepted a hand out least expect somebody
else be forced to look after his family.
whatamess
> "Dusty" <No....@home.org> wrote in message
>
> news:gmodb2$aqu$01$1...@news.t-online.com...
>
>
>
> > "DB" <Dee...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> >news:uSFjl.3911$PE4...@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
DB, I so much agree with you...you see, I thought I was as good as man
before...
I worked hard for 19 years, I didn't have a child until age 33 and
married, I didn't
have a child until I had money in the bank, 401K and stocks and a
house under
my name for which I could afford the full mortgage on my salary alone,
plus
expenses...and of course, a 2 yr old car fully paid for...but stupid
me!!! I was
just like all other weak women that think they are as good as a
man...cause
after all the money I have had to fork out to support a child that is
not mine
and her siblings, mother and crappy stepfather, well, I'm now in the
hole needing
some darn help from the government...ok, I haven't taken a dime yet,
but I sure
am thinking about it...what the heck, they've taken my money so that
they can
make money from the federal government...I figure the least they could
do
is return to me the money they have made off the feds at my expense...
PS - the first 1/2 of this is the truth, the second half is me being
sarcastic...hehe
Dusty
And therein lies the heart of my laughter.
DB
Yes, if women were looking for equality, they are certainly welcome to have
it!
Women can ever achieve equality as long as they take men's charity.
teachrmama
> "Ed" <a...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:498E96...@hotmail.com...
<snicker> You're in rare form here, DB!!
DB
"teachrmama" <teach...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:56793669-9101-4b1d...@r36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Thanks Teach, I've just come around to the Puritans way of thinking!
I'm thinking about running for Mayor of the village here and building my
platform on protecting women from the evil's of men. I would like to
bring back the public stocks in the center of the village square to shame
all these dead beats too, but I guess the pictures on a Pizza Box will have
to do for now.
It might be a good idea to burn these deadbeats at the stake like they used
to for people that fit an outcast profile or make all these dead beats sit
on the back of the bus as other second class citizens had to.
What do you think of this campaign slogan?
A vote for DB is a vote for women's rights because women are too brainless
to look after themselves!
Kenneth S.
I suggest the following innovative measures be added to your
political platform:
(1) Don't just put the pictures of the deadbeats on pizza
boxes. That means that non-pizza eaters won't know about them. Put
them up on web sites where everyone with a computer can see them. And
put out press releases about them too, so that misleading information
can be further spread around by gullible newspaper reporters, who can
be relied upon not to comment on the strange fact that 50 percent of
parents are female, but there are none of them on the web sites.
(2) Burning the deadbeats at the stake is a good idea, but
probably this would be impossible under current air pollution laws.
Making them sit at the back of the bus is OK, too, but so many places
don't have public transportation. So, why not deny them drivers'
licenses, thus ensuring that they won't be able to go anywhere, and
maybe will lose their jobs.
(3) Don't just put them in the stocks, which many would regard
as a big joke, and which would be a natural gathering ground for other
men who have been pushed into poverty by their exes. A crowd like
that could draw public attention to the whole situation, and could
even attract undeserved sympathy for the deadbeats. Are you aware
that abolition of debtors' prison doesn't apply to nonpayment of
"child support?" So why not put these deadbeats in prison until they
pay up?
Er, wait a moment . . . . well, never mind!
Bob W
"Kenneth S." <nim...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:eu8mp4hk4tr477qhk...@4ax.com...
Further restrictions on all CS obligors should be added to the platform to
have more control over their personal lives and treat them like criminals
with parole limitations. Several states like Kansas are adopting new
legislation giving CSE the ability to limit driving privileges except for
to/from work, school. or during work if they owe more than $500 in arrears.
http://www.srskansas.org/SRSPress/2009/Child_Support_Enforcement.html
IOW - The platform should make it clear men are no longer given driving
privileges to see their children, go shopping, attend church, enjoy outside
interests, go on vacations, etc. without fear of being in violation of CSE
regulation of their lives.
DB
"Bob W" <rob...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:Yt-dnTbN0eW5wgbU...@giganews.com...
Oh hell, why not paint all men green, all we are is an ATM for these women!
PissOnThe
That's why marriage is becoming a thing of the past, the government has
given women the security and will provide for the women.
When the police pick up someone for CS nonpayment do the police have a
warrant, is that person charged with a crime, do they get a trial and do
they get sentenced? OR are these people that owe CS whisked away to
jail and held indefinitely since there is no sentencing?
Dusty
news:BTLml.5272$19....@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
Why waste time? Eliminate the middle man and declare Open Season on all
NCP!! Shoot on sight, CP's get first dibs though!!
DB
"PissOnThe" <FireHydrant@talk-n-Dog..com> wrote in
>>> IOW - The platform should make it clear men are no longer given driving
>>> privileges to see their children, go shopping, attend church, enjoy
>>> outside interests, go on vacations, etc. without fear of being in
>>> violation of CSE regulation of their lives.
>>
>> Oh hell, why not paint all men green, all we are is an ATM for these
>> women!
>
>
> That's why marriage is becoming a thing of the past, the government has
> given women the security and will provide for the women.
>
> When the police pick up someone for CS nonpayment do the police have a
> warrant, is that person charged with a crime, do they get a trial and do
> they get sentenced? OR are these people that owe CS whisked away to jail
> and held indefinitely since there is no sentencing?
When the arrearage reaches a set amount, a nation wide warrant is issued for
the arrest of the father.
He is charged with felony failure to pay child support and a criminal trial
date is set.
Most are plea bargained where the Father agrees to pay a huge lump sum with
a high monthly rate or threatened with 1 to 4 years in federal prison.
At this stage, most who go to prison are indigent people that can't afford
to pay off the money, those who can pay lead a life of poverty as 60% of
their take home pay is garnished every pay period.
Do know about you, that leaves many blue collar workers living on about $800
per month!
Who i$ John Galt
Spread the word to the young men of America.... Don't have kids, and
don't get married.
Who i$ John Galt
Spread the word to the young men of America.... Don't have kids, and
don't get married. Only fools would get married and let the Government
do that to them.
Will government intrusion here end up destroying the American family by
running off men, will we end up with women using invetro and having 8
babies at a time that are paid for by government?
Women get welfare and men get jailed. Makes sense to me?
The system is sexist.
Dusty
"Who i$ John Galt" <"Men of the Mind"@Talk-n-Dog..com> wrote in message
news:EKZml.5636$b9....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
Something I've been wondering about for some time.. When is enough, enough?
When does the shooting start? No, I don't mean one or two sad buggers, I
mean in earnest! When does a group arm themselves and say "We've had
enough, we ain't takin' any more. The bull shit stops now."
Shit, our ancestors did it over a freakin 3 cent tea tax, look what they
started. And here we're talkin' about 55-65% (more if you were unlucky
enough to have had your wages imputed..) of one's take-home pay sucked away
and sent to someone else to spend as they see fit.
Doesn't the idea of having your hard earned money just wiped away like that
and then given to someone who (I can only assume) you'd not give the time of
day to if you passed on the street? And they can spend your money anyway
they please, on whatever they feel like.
Doesn't that just piss you off?
Who i$ John Galt
I think the shit "is" hitting the fan, how many millions of workers
lives can they destroy before the workers all just lay down and laugh.
So many things colliding in the economy, it's like the perfect economic
storm. People arrested and jailed for Marijuana and taxes and
prostitution, child support..... The government is making so many people
into criminals that it's beginning to crush the economy.
If you look back to 1929 and prohibition, you'll notice that the
government made a disproportionate amount of society into criminals by
outlawing the consuming of liquor, and eventually the house of cards
fell down around them, then only 3 years later they repealed prohibition.
I'd like to give it an extra nudge today, and watch the whole can of
shit roll down the stairs. I'm thinking.....
> Shit, our ancestors did it over a freakin 3 cent tea tax, look what they
> started. And here we're talkin' about 55-65% (more if you were unlucky
> enough to have had your wages imputed..) of one's take-home pay sucked
> away and sent to someone else to spend as they see fit.
>
Life can suck.
> Doesn't the idea of having your hard earned money just wiped away like
> that and then given to someone who (I can only assume) you'd not give
> the time of day to if you passed on the street? And they can spend your
> money anyway they please, on whatever they feel like.
What's funny is that the government doesn't check to see if the mother
is taking care of the kids......
But hey.... look at the rise in women and pregnant women being murdered,
that's the government driving up the murder rate. It seems a lot of
people are getting the message you are getting. They had just seen it
before they got to the point where you are.
I have suggested to several young men that they not get sucked into the
whole marriage thing..... I did it once, never again, but that's just me.
I saw the kid(23years old) next door get tossed into jail for child
support and he was held until his grandparents paid the extortion to the
courts to get him out. He was home about a week and he killed himself.
His grand mother turned up with cancer soon after and a week after she
died, his grand father shot himself out back in his lawn chair. They
all loved the baby and enjoyed when the Kid had his baby for the weekend.
Now the baby has no father to pay support(or tell him bed time stories)
and the grand parents just folded up and died too so the baby is running
short of family. I blame the courts that treat fathers like criminals
before they commit a crime. I wonder if the baby will ever find out why
his dad is dead?
It's an unfair world and the government is the main contributor in
making it unfair. No one pointed out things like that to me when I was a
young man. I've watched the government weasel it's way into our lives
over the years and people call me crazy when I point it out, they don't
think they're crazy for not noticing.
My guess is no matter what anyone says it just won't help someone
getting screwed over. So just say keep going and fight the system at
every turn to people I know...
I've been going against the grain for 30 years.
teachrmama
> "teachrmama" <teachrm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
How about: DB--deadbeats' nightmare, women's dream. I'm here to help
you, little ladies.
DB
-----------------------------------------
yes, i like it!
Vote for DB, I have a permanent stimulus plan for all females regardless of
income.
Make babies at will with anyone, stay at home and get paid!
Dusty
---------------------------
How 'bout this.. Out of work? No problem, just point at the nearest
male(s) (age matters not) and we'll take every dime they, er, he will ever
make in their/his lifetime - and give it all to you! And here's the best
part - it's all tax free!!
Jeff Strickland
If you spent more time looking at their eyes, you'd not notice stuff like
this.
Who I$ John Galt
> Something I've been wondering about for some time.. When is enough,
> enough? When does the shooting start? No, I don't mean one or two sad
> buggers, I mean in earnest! When does a group arm themselves and say
> "We've had enough, we ain't takin' any more. The bull shit stops now."
I think the shit "is" hitting the fan, how many millions of workers
lives can they destroy before the workers all just lay down and laugh.
So many things colliding in the economy, it's like the perfect economic
storm. People arrested and jailed for Marijuana and taxes and
prostitution, child support..... The government is making so many people
into criminals that it's beginning to crush the economy.
If you look back to 1929 and prohibition, you'll notice that the
government made a disproportionate amount of society into criminals by
outlawing the consuming of liquor, and eventually the house of cards
fell down around them, then only 3 years later they repealed prohibition.
I'd like to give it an extra nudge today, and watch the whole can of
shit roll down the stairs. I'm thinking.....
> Shit, our ancestors did it over a freakin 3 cent tea tax, look what they
> started. And here we're talkin' about 55-65% (more if you were unlucky
> enough to have had your wages imputed..) of one's take-home pay sucked
> away and sent to someone else to spend as they see fit.
>
--