Virginia: Child Support Undefined

2 views
Skip to first unread message

RogerFGay

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 3:11:41 AM9/16/02
to
Virginia Panel Votes to Leave 'Child Support' Undefined
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/stories/gay091602.htm

The Virginia Child Support Review Panel is tasked with assuring that
the use of the state's child support guideline results in appropriate
awards. One might think this job impossible if the term "child
support" is not defined. That is exactly what panel member Murray
Steinberg thought. Mr. Steinberg has been trying since early June to
have the panel agree on a definition of "child support."

On July 1st, without discussion, the panel voted 8-1 to "keep the
current definition" — meaning that the panel continue its review
without defining the all important term. The motion to hold the vote
was given by state Senator Frederick Quayle (R-District 13). Senator
Quayle's two offices were contacted twice by email over a two week
period asking for comment. A staff member responded that he was not
available.

complete article
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/stories/gay091602.htm

Bob

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 11:17:50 AM9/16/02
to

RogerFGay wrote:

> Virginia Panel Votes to Leave 'Child Support' Undefined
> http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/stories/gay091602.htm
>
> The Virginia Child Support Review Panel is tasked with assuring that
> the use of the state's child support guideline results in appropriate
> awards. One might think this job impossible if the term "child
> support" is not defined. That is exactly what panel member Murray
> Steinberg thought. Mr. Steinberg has been trying since early June to
> have the panel agree on a definition of "child support."


I'll give twenty to one odds that their new definition does not include
feeding, clothing, or housing a child.

Bob

>
> On July 1st, without discussion, the panel voted 8-1 to "keep the

> current definition" -- meaning that the panel continue its review

RogerFGay

unread,
Sep 17, 2002, 3:24:09 AM9/17/02
to
Bob <bobx...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3D85F63...@hotmail.com>...

> RogerFGay wrote:
>
> > Virginia Panel Votes to Leave 'Child Support' Undefined
> > http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/stories/gay091602.htm
> >
> > The Virginia Child Support Review Panel is tasked with assuring that
> > the use of the state's child support guideline results in appropriate
> > awards. One might think this job impossible if the term "child
> > support" is not defined. That is exactly what panel member Murray
> > Steinberg thought. Mr. Steinberg has been trying since early June to
> > have the panel agree on a definition of "child support."
>
>
> I'll give twenty to one odds that their new definition does not include
> feeding, clothing, or housing a child.
>
> Bob
>

Their new definition is the same as the old one; i.e. there is no
definition. That allows them to continue to arbitrarily manipulate the
amount of "child support" ordered doing anything they want to with the
formula.

Martin Davies

unread,
Sep 17, 2002, 12:27:34 PM9/17/02
to
roge...@yahoo.com (RogerFGay) wrote in message news:<4b6433c3.02091...@posting.google.com>...


Just out of interest, does the American legal system let them get away
with that?
Other people have told me that the American system (including
constitution) is superior to other countries - yet you end up with
some "undefined" definition.

Can the people of that state not challenge that decision?

The British system of child support is crap - but over time it gets
defined more and more (case law from child support commissioners does
the main bit).
Sometimes resulting in a definition thats completely different from
what was origionally envisaged.

Martin <><

Bob

unread,
Sep 17, 2002, 12:56:20 PM9/17/02
to

Martin Davies wrote:

> roge...@yahoo.com (RogerFGay) wrote in message news:<4b6433c3.02091...@posting.google.com>...
>
>>Bob <bobx...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3D85F63...@hotmail.com>...
>>
>>>RogerFGay wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Virginia Panel Votes to Leave 'Child Support' Undefined
>>>>http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/stories/gay091602.htm
>>>>
>>>>The Virginia Child Support Review Panel is tasked with assuring that
>>>>the use of the state's child support guideline results in appropriate
>>>>awards. One might think this job impossible if the term "child
>>>>support" is not defined. That is exactly what panel member Murray
>>>>Steinberg thought. Mr. Steinberg has been trying since early June to
>>>>have the panel agree on a definition of "child support."
>>>>
>>>
>>>I'll give twenty to one odds that their new definition does not include
>>>feeding, clothing, or housing a child.
>>>
>>>Bob
>>>
>>>
>>Their new definition is the same as the old one; i.e. there is no
>>definition. That allows them to continue to arbitrarily manipulate the
>>amount of "child support" ordered doing anything they want to with the
>>formula.
>>
>
>
> Just out of interest, does the American legal system let them get away
> with that?


Yes, the American Illegal system is based on that.

> Other people have told me that the American system (including
> constitution) is superior to other countries - yet you end up with
> some "undefined" definition.


Its the law. Its what they do. Its the old champion system in a black
robe. My champion can best your champion, only men's champions need not
apply

> Can the people of that state not challenge that decision?


No. The people have no recourse.


> The British system of child support is crap - but over time it gets
> defined more and more (case law from child support commissioners does
> the main bit).


The system is wrong from the start. You can't make wrong into right by
doing it more effectively.

> Sometimes resulting in a definition thats completely different from
> what was origionally envisaged.
> Martin <><


It was originally envisioned as a system to take men's money and give it
to women. It meets the vision very well. That's why they won't make
changes. Its doing exactly what its supposed to do, enslave men to pay
women. Why is that hard to see?

Bob


Barry Pearson

unread,
Sep 17, 2002, 2:28:54 PM9/17/02
to
"Martin Davies" <martin...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a7643214.02091...@posting.google.com...

Given the number of newsgroups and countries that this article is directed at,
perhaps introductions are in order. Some people here may not understand your
position.

You and I are among the most knowledgeable people concerning the UK's child
support system currently posting to Usenet. Neither of us has children, so we
are devoting our time to this because we believe that the UK's system has
serious flaws. Neither of us is trying to sort out our own position. I'm
childfree and intend to stay that way, while each time I have met you I have
also met your wife, so I guess child support is not a personal issue with you!
In effect, we are doing this for charity - to make things better for others, not
ourselves.

For each of us, our personal position gives us a certain amount of objectivity
and independence. We don't always agree with one-another, but both of us can see
flaws in the polarised positions of those with personal issues and particular
ideologies, because we have views of the overall situations of the nearly 4
million men, women, and children impacted by the UK's child support system. We
both know that few if any of the generalisations posted to newsgroups are
sufficiently true to form the single basis of law. I think we both agree with
the concept of child support, but not with the current or reformed UK child
support system.

> roge...@yahoo.com (RogerFGay) wrote in message
news:<4b6433c3.02091...@posting.google.com>...

[snip]


> > Their new definition is the same as the old one; i.e. there is no
> > definition. That allows them to continue to arbitrarily
> > manipulate the amount of "child support" ordered doing
> > anything they want to with the formula.
>
> Just out of interest, does the American legal system let them get
> away with that?
> Other people have told me that the American system (including
> constitution) is superior to other countries - yet you end up with
> some "undefined" definition.

I have previous tended to envy the US Constitution. I'm having second thoughts.

Let's be clear. The UK has a constitution. It is all written down. But there
isn't a document saying what, of everything that has been written down, is the
constitution! So what the constitution is is a matter of interpretation and
convention. Take your pick.

The UK has no Bill of Rights. The US does - a set of amendments (including the
first 10) to the Constitution. (Is that right?) Only the UK (and Israel I think)
of all developed nations are in this state. The Human Rights Act 1998 isn't a
Bill of Rights, because it is simply a law subject to the primacy of Parliament,
and not entrenched. But it is a step in the right direction.

The result tends to be that the UK government encroaches on "rights" for reasons
of "state security". But not for child support. Overriding HRA 1998 is a serious
matter, not worth doing "just" for matters of internal social policy. I monitor
the database of the European Convention on Human Rights, and on the whole the
UK's child support policy is consistent with it. It is more likely that a
contravention would involve failure to provide support for children than the
other way round.

> Can the people of that state not challenge that decision?

I think Smith versus Odum (to do with paternity fraud) was intended to, but the
Supreme Court rejected it. Guess what - Smith versus Odum would have caused the
US child support system to recognise biological paternity, and even refund prior
payments if biological paternity was disproved later.

Exactly as the UK has been since April 1993! THAT is what a centralised
administration like the UK can do!

> The British system of child support is crap - but over time it gets
> defined more and more (case law from child support
> commissioners does the main bit).

The UK system is crap. The United States system is CRAP!

The cap on the UK's current system for one child is less than £160 per week,
perhaps less than about $260 per week. The Kerkorian case has an award of about
$73,800 per week!

Anyone criticising the UK's way of going about things (we tend to rely upon our
well developed civil service rather than going to court at the drop of a hat)
should contemplate the above numbers. We elected the people who set that amount
of $260, and have since elected others. We don't elect our judges (perhaps the
United States does), so judges shouldn't steer social policy by determining
winners and losers in matters such as this.

There has been criticism here that central administrative agencies are an
influence of communist systems. Utter poppycock! The UK (well, Great Britain at
least) had a well developed civil service before there were communist states -
it is just another way of implementing policy. Perhaps it is "in competition
with" litigation - France has an even better developed civil service, and fewer
lawyers per head than the UK. It is a mistake to position these approaches on a
left-to-right scale.

> Sometimes resulting in a definition thats completely different
> from what was origionally envisaged.

The UK has scope for correcting serious legislative errors, although I'm not as
convinced as you that the result is completely different from what was
originally envisaged. The corrections tend to apply to ambiguities, not to
unambiguous law.


--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/faq/

Bob

unread,
Sep 17, 2002, 2:54:46 PM9/17/02
to

Barry Pearson wrote:

> For each of us, our personal position gives us a certain amount of objectivity
> and independence. We don't always agree with one-another, but both of us can see
> flaws in the polarised positions of those with personal issues and particular
> ideologies, because we have views of the overall situations of the nearly 4
> million men, women, and children impacted by the UK's child support system. We
> both know that few if any of the generalisations posted to newsgroups are
> sufficiently true to form the single basis of law.


I don't think we know that. C$ systems in whatever country serve the
same purpose. They serve to take men's money and pay whom who break up
families. That purpose is sufficiently true to say that the system is
wrong and ought to be dismantled immediately. It is also sufficiently
true to say that anyone who works for such a system spends his or her
days hurting children.


> I think we both agree with
> the concept of child support, but not with the current or reformed UK child
> support system.


You can't do WRONG by doing WRONG more effectively. The system is WRONG
in its very conception and needs to be destroyed.

Bob

Martin Davies

unread,
Sep 18, 2002, 4:24:21 AM9/18/02
to
Bob <bobx...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3D877A97...@hotmail.com>...
OK, the system is wrong.
Will you just destroy it and replace it with nothing? Or will you
replace it with something, if so then what?

I feel there needs to be some system for when parents cannot or will
not agree.

Martin <><

> Bob

Phil#3

unread,
Sep 18, 2002, 9:22:16 AM9/18/02
to

"Martin Davies" <martin...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a7643214.02091...@posting.google.com...


Would doing "nothing" harm more, less or about equal to the numbers of
children and families as the system now in place is harming?
If, as is suspected, fewer would be harmed by allowing all parents to be the
parents they choose, doing nothing would be preferable.
If more would be harmed, then take only the action needed for each separate
and specific case instead of driving square pegs into round holes.
By disallowing the incentives of divorce, many divorces would never occur to
begin with. Removing the punitive measures of divorce would keep more
parents involved and enabled to care directly for their children; both of
which would serve not only children but the parents as well.

From where I stand, it seems doing nothing would be preferable to the
current disaster.
--
Moral character should not be measured so much by how well we act, but more
from why we act well.
Phil #3

RogerFGay

unread,
Sep 18, 2002, 10:31:59 AM9/18/02
to
martin...@cableinet.co.uk (Martin Davies) wrote in message news:<a7643214.02091...@posting.google.com>...

>
>
> OK, the system is wrong.
> Will you just destroy it and replace it with nothing? Or will you
> replace it with something, if so then what?
>
> I feel there needs to be some system for when parents cannot or will
> not agree.
>
> Martin <><

It depends on what you mean by "the system." What most people are
complaining about is "the system" created by the federal government.
Its history only goes back to 1975. We can certainly just eliminate
all the federal laws on child support and remove the federal
government from the process entirely. That's what I would recommend.
Doing that would return us to "the system" that developed over a
period of 200 years in the shadow of the Constitution. It wasn't
broken. They made a huge mistake trying to fix it.

Bob

unread,
Sep 18, 2002, 1:22:21 PM9/18/02
to

Martin Davies wrote:

The age old system that worked for many millennia before feminism is
still fine. Each parent is RESPONSIBLE for the children. If the mother
takes the children or the father gives them to her SHE is RESPONSIBLE
for the children. If she gives them to the father or the father takes
them then HE is RESPONSIBLE for the children. It did and it will
encourage parents to work together rather than encouraging them to fight
over custody and promote separation of families .

If both parents leave the children to starve in the streets the
government already has foster care programs. In that case BOTH are
guilty of child abuse.

Destroy the C$ feminst program that steals men's money and pays women to
destroy families. Its just WRONG.

Bob


Bob

unread,
Sep 18, 2002, 1:24:26 PM9/18/02
to

Phil#3 wrote:


DUH! Doing nothing harms fewer than harming families and children.


> If, as is suspected, fewer would be harmed by allowing all parents to be the
> parents they choose, doing nothing would be preferable.


Greatly preferable.

> If more would be harmed, then take only the action needed for each separate
> and specific case instead of driving square pegs into round holes.


Far fewer would be harmed by eliminating payments to people who divorce,
paying people to divorce.


> By disallowing the incentives of divorce, many divorces would never occur to
> begin with. Removing the punitive measures of divorce would keep more
> parents involved and enabled to care directly for their children; both of
> which would serve not only children but the parents as well.
>
> From where I stand, it seems doing nothing would be preferable to the
> current disaster.


Much better than the current disaster of a failed feminist social
experiment.

Bob

Bob

unread,
Sep 18, 2002, 1:27:17 PM9/18/02
to

RogerFGay wrote:


Exactly. Most people now think that the current C$ system is "the way
its always been" when nothing could be farther from the truth. In facts
its a radical new feminist experiment in social planning designed
specifically to encourage women to leave their families, take the
children and still force men to pay them. Its a very new experiment and
a total FAILURE. It has hurt millions of children. It needs to be
destroyed, and the sooner its destroyed the more children will be saved.

Bob


RogerFGay

unread,
Sep 19, 2002, 3:45:44 AM9/19/02
to
Bob <bobx...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3D88B79D...@hotmail.com>...

>
>
> Exactly. Most people now think that the current C$ system is "the way
> its always been" when nothing could be farther from the truth. In facts
> its a radical new feminist experiment in social planning designed
> specifically to encourage women to leave their families, take the
> children and still force men to pay them. Its a very new experiment and
> a total FAILURE. It has hurt millions of children. It needs to be
> destroyed, and the sooner its destroyed the more children will be saved.
>
> Bob


They said they were just enforcing the law, and claimed they had to
increase enforcement efforts because child support law was not being
enforced. Both claims were lies.

Stan Mould

unread,
Sep 23, 2002, 5:53:22 PM9/23/02
to
Why TF is the *UK* fathers group constantly being spammed with *US* stuff
such as this?

Stan


John Jones

unread,
Sep 23, 2002, 6:44:19 PM9/23/02
to
[headers trimmed]

"Stan Mould" <stan...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:m3Mj9.6009$sn6.57...@news-text.cableinet.net...

Because someone thinks that the message pertains to both groups,
or because someone is trying to start yet another flame war.

Hope that helps!

RogerFGay

unread,
Sep 24, 2002, 4:17:39 PM9/24/02
to
"Stan Mould" <stan...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<m3Mj9.6009$sn6.57...@news-text.cableinet.net>...
> Why TF is the *UK* fathers group constantly being spammed with *US* stuff
> such as this?
>
> Stan

Child support reforms were born of international treaties. The
corruption and problems they caused in the US and UK are one in the
same.

Stan Mould

unread,
Sep 25, 2002, 1:13:36 AM9/25/02
to

"RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4b6433c3.02092...@posting.google.com...

I agree, but it seems to me to be more a problem of cross-posting and people
replying without changing the NG's to those relevant. (Deliberately left
unchanged to get the point across)

Stan


Tracy

unread,
Sep 25, 2002, 1:43:47 AM9/25/02
to
Tomorrow in alt.child-support and 4 other newsgroups, Stan Mould expressed:

Stan, since I don't know which UK group you are corresponding from I left
them in. I wish the cross-posting would stop, because less than 10% of
the posts showing up in alt.child-support are actually being responded to
by people who regularly correspond in this group. Well over 90% of the
posts showing up are cross-posted. I know who starts some of them, and I
wish he would see that he isn't doing a service to any of these groups by
cross-posting.

Tracy

~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/

Afer Ventus... "The moment experienced when everything in life suddenly
makes sense - when everything fits into place and we know why - is a rare
moment, but it does happen." - Roma Ryan

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

Stan Mould

unread,
Sep 27, 2002, 5:09:14 PM9/27/02
to

"Tracy" <ni...@merlins.place> wrote in message
news:Pine.WNT.4.44.0209242235230.1688-100000@mom...

Thanks for that, Tracy.

I was posting from uk.people.fathers. the other posts were cross posted all
over the place, such as -
alt.child-support,
alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,
soc.men,
uk.gov.agency.csa,
uk.people.fathers

It's absolutely pointless because the latter two are in the UK and the
others in the US. Ok, there might be vague similarities, but not in the
detail.

It just wastes everyone's time and bandwidth cross-posting such
irrelevancies.

Stan


RogerFGay

unread,
Oct 1, 2002, 1:06:17 PM10/1/02
to
Tracy <ni...@merlins.place> wrote in message news:<Pine.WNT.4.44.0209242235230.1688-100000@mom>...
>
> Stan, since I don't know which UK group you are corresponding from I left
> them in. I wish the cross-posting would stop, because less than 10% of
> the posts showing up in alt.child-support are actually being responded to
> by people who regularly correspond in this group. Well over 90% of the
> posts showing up are cross-posted. I know who starts some of them, and I
> wish he would see that he isn't doing a service to any of these groups by
> cross-posting.
>
> Tracy
>

We've covered this ground several times before. The child support
issue is an international issue. Child support reforms in a long list
of countries resulted from international treaties and conventions.
We've had a lot of cross talk between the English and Americans in our
postings, and it's a pity that other countries have not developed
corresponding discussion groups so that we can so easily include them.

Barry Pearson

unread,
Oct 2, 2002, 1:36:00 PM10/2/02
to
"RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4b6433c3.02100...@posting.google.com...

> Tracy <ni...@merlins.place> wrote in message
news:<Pine.WNT.4.44.0209242235230.1688-100000@mom>...
> >
> > Stan, since I don't know which UK group you are corresponding
> > from I left them in. I wish the cross-posting would stop, because
> > less than 10% of the posts showing up in alt.child-support are
> > actually being responded to by people who regularly correspond
> > in this group. Well over 90% of the posts showing up are cross-posted.
> > I know who starts some of them, and I wish he would see that he isn't
> > doing a service to any of these groups by cross-posting.
>
> We've covered this ground several times before. The child support
> issue is an international issue. Child support reforms in a long list
> of countries resulted from international treaties and conventions.
> We've had a lot of cross talk between the English and Americans in our
> postings, and it's a pity that other countries have not developed
> corresponding discussion groups so that we can so easily include them.

I've trimmed some of the newsgroups, but left uk.people.fathers in to see if
Stan wants to comment.

The first point is that there are 2 UK newsgroups in the list, each with its own
scope. Roughly, one is about the UK's child support system, the other is about
UK-fathers' rights or their lack. Some articles are relevant to both, but most
are not. People concerned with father's rights who are ALSO interested in child
support will subscribe to both, so articles specifically about one topic or the
other need not be cross-posted to both.

The second point is that it is probably a "stretch" to say that issues with
definitions in one of the United States counts as an "international issue". I
would have seen it anyway because I subscribe to alt.child-support, but
uk.gov.agency.csa is deliberately scoped to the UK. If there really is "the
child support issue", I doubt if it is this one.

Charters, for interest. (They are a feature of later uk.* groups).
http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.people.fathers.html
http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.gov.agency.csa.html

RogerFGay

unread,
Oct 3, 2002, 4:30:32 AM10/3/02
to
"Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message news:<tdGm9.788$kU4.101359@newsfep2-gui>...

>
> The second point is that it is probably a "stretch" to say that issues with
> definitions in one of the United States counts as an "international issue". I
> would have seen it anyway because I subscribe to alt.child-support, but
> uk.gov.agency.csa is deliberately scoped to the UK. If there really is "the
> child support issue", I doubt if it is this one.
>
>

The child support system in the US and UK are based on the same
treaties and international conventions. They share the same basic law.
We're all discussing the effects of exactly the same international
conspiracy to eliminate basic rights and establish the policies of an
international dictatorship.

We all know there are people on both sides of the issue. Barry, you've
spent a lot of time trying to cover up the fact that the western rule
of law has been abolished in favor of arbitrarily control policies
developed through socialist dictatorships. You'd like to limit
comments so that you can continue to pretend that the child support
system in England is a natural evolution based on democratic
principles and procedures.

Ain't gonna happen.

Stan Mould

unread,
Oct 3, 2002, 2:18:46 PM10/3/02
to

"Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tdGm9.788$kU4.101359@newsfep2-gui...


I think you have hit the nail on the head. I am not in the slightest
interested in reading a load of stuff from the States when I subscribe to a
UK hierarchy newsgroup.

If I want to get the US view, then I'll subscribe to alt.US.fathers.child
support or whatever it is.

I think the people in all these US groups are the ones that seem to be
spamming the UK groups in the belief that they are spreading their message.
They are not. They are irritating and it is pointless when we have our own
groups.

No-one denies the similarities in the concept, but the operational
differences are what counts.

Stan


Stan Mould

unread,
Oct 3, 2002, 2:20:10 PM10/3/02
to

"RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4b6433c3.02100...@posting.google.com...

You should take your political ideas to the appropriate NGs.

I think they are a load of shite.

Stan


Barry Pearson

unread,
Oct 4, 2002, 3:08:07 PM10/4/02
to
"RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4b6433c3.02100...@posting.google.com...
> "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<tdGm9.788$kU4.101359@newsfep2-gui>...
> >
> > The second point is that it is probably a "stretch" to say that
> > issues with definitions in one of the United States counts as
> > an "international issue". I would have seen it anyway because
> > I subscribe to alt.child-support, but uk.gov.agency.csa is
> > deliberately scoped to the UK. If there really is "the
> > child support issue", I doubt if it is this one.
>
> The child support system in the US and UK are based on the
> same treaties and international conventions.

Not true. (But you are welcome to post identification of those treaties and
international conventions so that your assertion can be examined).

The child support system in the UK originated long before there were such
treaties, etc. The origins were probably in the early 17th Century, when the
public supported those who were unable to support themselves, but sought
reimbursement by imposing a legal liability upon financially able relatives.
(Finer Report). For example, in the case of bastard children, the liability was
limited to the mother and the putative father. The bastardy clauses of the Poor
Law of 1834 refined this, but by contraining the amounts to the cost to the
parish of supporting the child (and also limited it to the first 7 years of the
child). However, child support, although not in name, was present then. This
continued pretty well unchanged until WW2.

Obviously, this changed dramatically in 1948 (with the National Assistance Act),
which overruled much of what had gone before. This is an illustration of how the
politics of the day can change what has already been established. But some of
the key principles were still there - the state provided, and then called upon
parents. It carried forward some of the principles of the Poor Law of 1927, but
limited the liable relatives to husbands and wives and to parents. So - "liable
relatives" were still in law in 1948. And they have been there since, at least
until 1993.

> They share the same basic law.

Not true. Are you seriously saying that the USA shares the 1834 and 1927 laws,
the liable relative laws, the National Assistance Act, etc?

If you or anyone REALLY wants to know what the UK's child support is, have a
look at:
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/the_legislation.htm
I defy you to identify any serious compatibility with the laws of any other
nation.

Hint: anyone searching for more information should look at "child maintenance"
as well as "child support". The latter term is mostly a late arrival in most
countries, perhaps from the USA. Even the UK still officially calls the payments
"child support maintenance", and often just uses (qualified) "maintenance" as in
"maintenance assessment". Many countries simply use the term "child
maintenance", or variants. "Child support" is sometimes handled by international
agencies in a much broader sense, including support for children from the state.
So examination of the term "child support" will give a very misleading and
restricted view.

> We're all discussing the effects of exactly the same international
> conspiracy to eliminate basic rights and establish the policies
> of an international dictatorship.

No we are not. There is no such conspiracy. There is no such dictatorship. You
are not a script-writer for the X-Files!

> We all know there are people on both sides of the issue.
> Barry, you've spent a lot of time trying to cover up the
> fact that the western rule of law has been abolished in favor
> of arbitrarily control policies developed through socialist
> dictatorships.

There is no such fact. I have therefore not had to spend a lot of time covering
up that non-existent fact.

The UK's child support system was established as an anti-socialist measure by an
anti-socialist government. Its aim was to reduce social security (welfare)
expenditure by putting responsiblity for the raising of children back onto
parents, even when separated, instead of letting them claim from the state (ie,
from taxpayers). The fact that is was anti-socialist is inconvenient to some
people - they want to be able to rationalise their hatred of paying child
support into an identifiable enemy, such as socialism. But, in the UK, that is
just plain silly!

My understanding is that the USA's child support is rooted in the invention of a
legally enforceable child support obligation by American courts in the
nineteenth century. Child support is very old, even in the USA:

The American invention of child support: dependency and punishment in early
American child support law.
Source: Yale Law Journal
Date: 03/1999
Document ID: PN19990526010000131
Citation Information: (108 5) Start Page: 1123-1153 ISSN: 0044-0094
Author(s): Hansen, Drew D
http://ancpr.org/american_invention_of_child_supp.htm

"The judges who created a child support obligation were motivated both by a
desire to help needy single mothers and by a belief in conserving the
poor-relief system's resources by shifting the responsibility for aiding these
families onto nonsupporting fathers. In the second phase, many states in the
late nineteenth century enacted criminal nonsupport statutes to force fathers to
provide for their wives and children".

> You'd like to limit comments so that you can continue to pretend
> that the child support system in England is a natural evolution
> based on democratic principles and procedures.

It is. I don't need to limit comments, because that fact is pretty obvious. What
I am finding is that this also applies to other countries too. A number of
countries had child support systems pre-WW2, sometimes in the 19th Century, and
these systems have then developed from there as a result of the various
pressures in those countries. (But, as I said above, they typically didn't use
the therm "child support". Even where they used English, they often used the
term "child maintenance").

Many countries have child maintenenance / child support systems. For example,
try the following search:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22child+maintenance%22+h
istory&btnG=Google+Search
(A Google search on "child maintenance" history).

You will find material from Australia, Canada, Netherlands, Finland, etc. What
is happening is that many nations are facing similar problems. Lots of separated
families, a desire by taxpayers not to pay too much towards other people's
children, an increasing feeling that the fate of children matters to society.

There is a degree of "convergent evolution" - nations tending to adopt somewhat
similar solutions to similar problems. Similarities arise from the very obvious
fact that they talk to one-another. When the UK has a social problem, people go
and visit other nations who have similar problems, especially if they have put
in place measures to solve those problems. News travels. (Unfortanately, the UK
then went its own unique way, with disastrous results!)

The Finer Report (1974) examined some schemes across Europe, and said: "No
foreign programme is so simple or so isolated from its national context as to
commend itself for direct importation into another coutry. Operating in
different environments, any given policy toward one-parent families is likely to
acquire different practical meanings. At the same time, however, nations can
learn from the experiences of others, and, even where lessons are ambiguous,
different approaches can suggest a broader range of options than might appear in
isolation". (Volume 2, page 16). THAT is where similarities come from!

There is no conspiracy. But, of course, conspiracy theorists treat such
statements as proof of the conspiracy!

> Ain't gonna happen.

I accept that I will not be able to convince conspiracy theorists that they have
lost contact with reality.

But I don't need to. I am trying to help reform the UK's child support system.
Conspiracy theorists will have little impact on that - they are unlikely to be
of much help, but equally they are unlikely to be able to hinder much. I can
confidently carry on knowing that there is little or no critical thinking
opposed to what I am proposing.

Barry Pearson

unread,
Oct 4, 2002, 3:16:58 PM10/4/02
to
"Stan Mould" <stan...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uT%m9.3985$NW1.26...@news-text.cableinet.net...

> "RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4b6433c3.02100...@posting.google.com...
[snip]

> You should take your political ideas to the appropriate NGs.

There appear to be some useful alt.conspiracy.* newsgroups!

> I think they are a load of shite.

Just out of touch with the reality of the UK.

RogerFGay

unread,
Oct 5, 2002, 6:29:39 AM10/5/02
to
"Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message news:<NTln9.4753$h43....@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>...

> "Stan Mould" <stan...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:uT%m9.3985$NW1.26...@news-text.cableinet.net...
> > "RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:4b6433c3.02100...@posting.google.com...
> [snip]
> > You should take your political ideas to the appropriate NGs.
>
> There appear to be some useful alt.conspiracy.* newsgroups!
>
> > I think they are a load of shite.
>
> Just out of touch with the reality of the UK.


No Barry. We just don't agree with you that government's should act
arbitrarily with the intent to cause intense damage to a large group
of citizens. We disagree with you that it's ok to harm men just
because some anti-male propaganda has been circulated. We disagree
with you that the west should be decoupled from its liberal roots
altogether in favor of dictatorships controlled by an international
organization. We disagree with you that Marxist socialism should rise
again in the West after falling in the Soviet Union and elsewhere.

Barry Pearson

unread,
Oct 5, 2002, 5:42:20 PM10/5/02
to
"RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4b6433c3.0210...@posting.google.com...

> "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<NTln9.4753$h43....@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>...
[snip]

> > There appear to be some useful alt.conspiracy.* newsgroups!
[snip]

> > Just out of touch with the reality of the UK.
>
> No Barry. We ...

Below, I challenge your use of "we". Who are you who believe these specific
conspiracy theories? Where do you live? How many of you are there? Do you
matter?

> No Barry. We just don't agree with you that government's
> should act arbitrarily with the intent to cause intense damage
> to a large group of citizens.

Few if any people believe that "government's should act arbitrarily with the
intent to cause intense damage to a large group of citizens". (I don't). If you
believe ANYONE in the world does, please supply evidence!

Where child support / child maintenance is concerned, the effects may be painful
to some of the parties. That does not mean "intent" - it may simply be a
consequence of the obvious fact that where there are multiple parties, there
will be winners & losers whatever is decided. It may be the result of
incompetent administration, as with the UK's system. But it is unlikely to be be
"intent" - what would be the point, and to whom?

> We disagree with you that it's ok to harm men just
> because some anti-male propaganda has been
> circulated.

Few if any people believe that "it's ok to harm men just because some anti-male
propaganda has been circulated". (I don't). If you believe ANYONE in the world
does, please supply evidence!

Your statement is so silly that I feel no need to comment further.

> We disagree with you that the west should be decoupled
> from its liberal roots altogether in favor of dictatorships
> controlled by an international organization.

Few if any people believe that "the west should be decoupled from its liberal


roots altogether in favor of dictatorships controlled by an international

organization". (I don't). If you believe ANYONE in the world does, please supply
evidence!

As I research the history of child support / child maintenance, I realise that
it is compatible with the traditions of "Western civilisation" (which is why it
is most evident in "the West", and least evident in "the East").

The more "Western" a nation, the less likely it is that "the state" will be
providing for children, but also the more likely it is that there will be a
regard & respect for children's rights. I believe that the more "Western" the
nation, the higher will be the child support / child maintenance payment needed
to bring the children to the standard required by such "Western nations", given
the low levels of assistance supplied by such a nation. That may be why the USA
appears to have the highest levels of child support, with the UK somewhat less,
and nations such as Denmark which have higher levels of state assistance needing
even less child support / child maintenance.

> We disagree with you that Marxist socialism should
> rise again in the West after falling in the Soviet Union
> and elsewhere.

Few if any people believe that "Marxist socialism should rise again in the West
after falling in the Soviet Union and elsewhere". (I don't). If you believe
ANYONE in the world does, please supply evidence!

I suspect that the USSR learned aspects of child support / child maintenance
from "the West"! Child support / child maintenance can be traced back to
pre-USSR in the USA and the UK, where it grew as an anti-socialist measure.
Perhaps the USSR adopted "a good idea" from "the West", or else independently
arrived at the rather obvious idea that state-expenditures can be reduced by
maximising the contributions that parents make to the cost of raising their own
children.

I intend to research the history of child support / child maintenance across the
world, and I will publish it on my web site. We need to get beyond conspiracy
theories, and start to base our views on what really happened.

RogerFGay

unread,
Oct 6, 2002, 3:49:54 AM10/6/02
to
"Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message news:<26Jn9.9832$h43....@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>...

>
> Where child support / child maintenance is concerned, the effects may be painful
> to some of the parties. That does not mean "intent"

Yes it does. We know about those effects. They were understood when
the policy was created. The policy was chosen and is enforced. Intent
is clearly established.

Bad Man

unread,
Oct 6, 2002, 4:28:52 AM10/6/02
to

"RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4b6433c3.02100...@posting.google.com...

Agreed. While I could accept Barry's argument in the first year or two of
the CSA, that there has been no real attempt to ease the misery , and that
the misery continues, demonstrates intent.


Martin Davies

unread,
Oct 6, 2002, 9:58:17 AM10/6/02
to
"Bad Man" <badm...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message news:<anos84$rrh$1...@venus.btinternet.com>...

No real attempt?

Sorry, you are wrong.

Since 1996 (maybe even before then), the government has been working
on the new laws to replace the child support act 1991.
There have been changes made to the 1991 act, with several amendments,
most of which helped NRPs.
The government then produced the green paper for child support in
summer of 1998, and then took on board some of the comments and ideas
people provided in response to that.

And so we have ended up with a better system - the new child support
act, parts of which have already been implemented.
The main bit which everyone is waiting for has needed a new computer
system - and we are still waiting for EDS to finish it and test it
fully.

So the intent, since at least February 1994 (the first amendment to
the 1991 act), has been to work out fairer child support (the 1993
assessments were quite frnkly brutal in comparison to later
assessments).

Whether the intent will work in practise, we'll have to wait and see.
Its still a crap system, only better than what we have now.

Judging by how the policy was origionally written, and how it actually
turned out, the government made a mistake. Not suprisingly, many
people resented the origional assessments as they took very little
into account, and ignored clean break settlements altogether.


Martin <><

RogerFGay

unread,
Oct 6, 2002, 11:56:31 AM10/6/02
to
"Bad Man" <badm...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message news:<anos84$rrh$1...@venus.btinternet.com>...


There's this ongoing attempt to avoid fixing the problem by keeping
everyone's attention focused on adjustment of variables / details when
it's the whole overall model / system that's wrong. You can't start
with the idea that government is going to forcefully manage the
private lives of individuals using arbitrary standards (calling it
"social policy") and ever end up with anything good. The only way to
fix it is to return to liberal roots. An individual's personal life is
his own business. All these problems can be solved by applying the
established rules that government involvement must be minimized, and
any decision the government forces on someone must be extremely well
justified; not just as to the presence of government but as to the
detail of what the government forces an individual to do. The current
CSA is based on the idea that government has a legitimate interest and
authority that just ain't on the reality map.

Bad Man

unread,
Oct 6, 2002, 12:14:39 PM10/6/02
to

"Martin Davies" <martin...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a7643214.02100...@posting.google.com...

I'll not argue the fairness of the proposed system as I am not close enough
to the detail and the effects. But we ARE in 2002 (late 2002 at that). That
is YEARS since the original and we are still in an unfair situation. The
arguments of it being unfair on mothers receiving maintenance or that a such
massive change requires time are fatuous.

RogerFGay

unread,
Oct 6, 2002, 5:25:21 PM10/6/02
to
martin...@cableinet.co.uk (Martin Davies) wrote in message news:<a7643214.02100...@posting.google.com>...


The mistake the government made, in the UK and the US was to believe
that everyone would be stupid enough to buy the reform argument over
and over again. The saying goes, fool me once shame on you; fool me
twice shame on me. Now the agenda is moving forward. The problems
haven't been fixed. The whole thing was corruption and sham. Now, ...
just who the hell do you think you're talkin' to .... it's going to be
better when it's computerized? Look -- I guess the way I'll take this
is not to be so personally offended. We'll just have to assume that
you're the idiot.

Martin Davies

unread,
Oct 7, 2002, 4:44:14 AM10/7/02
to
roge...@yahoo.com (RogerFGay) wrote in message news:<4b6433c3.02100...@posting.google.com>...

What is the alternitive in a democracy to reform?

Whether they just tweak it, or start completely from scratch, to me
its reform.


The saying goes, fool me once shame on you; fool me
> twice shame on me. Now the agenda is moving forward. The problems
> haven't been fixed.

Some have.

The major problems with the formula that have been fixed with the new
one are pensions (100% allowed instead of 50%), no partners taken into
account, no carers premium in the assessment (too many people saw that
as some kind of spousal maintenance), and lower maximum percentages.
Plus easier to see if its correct or not.

There are other major problems, some of which the CSA cannot sort out
as its beyond its remit, others which are merely administrative and
can possibly be sorted with an easier to understand formula, though


we'll have to wait and see.


Fixing some of the problems at least makes things better.
And many people didn't bother replying to the green paper the
government produced as a consultation document in 1998 - 1600 replies
(some from staff) and about a million live cases (so approx 2 million
adults affected directly).

The whole thing was corruption and sham.

The corruption isn't in the CSA - it isn't in the law either.
It may be in the way things are done by the lawyers - legal bills of
thousands of pounds to get no access are more common than they should
be.

Now, ...
> just who the hell do you think you're talkin' to .... it's going to be
> better when it's computerized?

Who said it wasn't computerised?
Its going to be a different computer system - and an American company
famous in the UK for its computer problems (tax office, passport
office, air traffic control problems) is doing it.
Costing so far well over £200 million.

Having it computerised is far better than just having it clerical
(I've worked in both sorts of DSS offices, its far quicker on the
computer, by a factor of over 20).


Look -- I guess the way I'll take this
> is not to be so personally offended. We'll just have to assume that
> you're the idiot.


I'm not offended - and who is the idiot remains to be seen.

Martin <><
(off to bed for a well earned days sleep)

Barry Pearson

unread,
Oct 7, 2002, 9:15:08 AM10/7/02
to
"Martin Davies" <martin...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message news:a7643214.02100...@posting.google.com...
> roge...@yahoo.com (RogerFGay) wrote in message news:<4b6433c3.02100...@posting.google.com>...
[snip]

> > The mistake the government made, in the UK and the US was to believe
> > that everyone would be stupid enough to buy the reform argument over
> > and over again.

I suggest you stop speaking for the UK system - time after time you
show that you don't know much about it.

[snip]


> The saying goes, fool me once shame on you; fool me
> > twice shame on me. Now the agenda is moving forward. The problems
> > haven't been fixed.
>
> Some have.
>
> The major problems with the formula that have been fixed with the new
> one are pensions (100% allowed instead of 50%), no partners taken into
> account, no carers premium in the assessment (too many people saw that
> as some kind of spousal maintenance), and lower maximum percentages.
> Plus easier to see if its correct or not.

Plus the threshold for the shared care formula is now 52 nights per year,
not 104.

> There are other major problems, some of which the CSA cannot sort out
> as its beyond its remit, others which are merely administrative and
> can possibly be sorted with an easier to understand formula, though
> we'll have to wait and see.

Here is a summary, including nearly all the changes:
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/information_and_explanation/reform/reformed_scheme_summary_changes.htm

[snip]


> > Now, ...
> > just who the hell do you think you're talkin' to .... it's going to be
> > better when it's computerized?
>
> Who said it wasn't computerised?
> Its going to be a different computer system - and an American company
> famous in the UK for its computer problems (tax office, passport
> office, air traffic control problems) is doing it.
> Costing so far well over £200 million.
>
> Having it computerised is far better than just having it clerical
> (I've worked in both sorts of DSS offices, its far quicker on the
> computer, by a factor of over 20).

[snip]

There is an important point in here. There are various factors that cause
child maintenance / child support systems to evolve over time. Many of
these factors are common to different countries, which accounts for some
of the similarities. (Although many of the apparent similarities turn out to
be illusions, because the systems fit into different contexts - for example,
the interaction with the social security system in the UK makes the CSA
an anti-socialist measure).

One such factor is the ability to computerise a central agency. I suspect
that countries will increasingly take this opportunity.

RogerFGay

unread,
Oct 8, 2002, 7:33:45 AM10/8/02
to

"Martin Davies" <martin...@cableinet.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
news:a7643214.02100...@posting.google.com...

> roge...@yahoo.com (RogerFGay) wrote in message
news:<4b6433c3.02100...@posting.google.com>...

> >


> > The mistake the government made, in the UK and the US was to believe
> > that everyone would be stupid enough to buy the reform argument over
> > and over again.
>
> What is the alternitive in a democracy to reform?
>
> Whether they just tweak it, or start completely from scratch, to me
> its reform.
>
>
>

How many hundreds of years has the UK had to get child support right? This
idea that "democracy" requires continual re-evaluation and arbitrary
modification of the way government manipulates individuals is way too far
into the scale of extremist political views. Just like ín the US, the courts
in the UK had already figured out what "child support" is and what the
fundamental rules are for making decisions. This new round of confusion and
arbitrary manipulation is entirely artificial. It's abuse of power -
corruption. That's what always happens when people abuse the concept of
"democracy" to make it mean that the power of the elected extends into
arbitrary manipulation of individuals.


RogerFGay

unread,
Oct 8, 2002, 7:35:59 AM10/8/02
to

"Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
news:vSfo9.912$s52.85635@newsfep2-gui...

> "Martin Davies" <martin...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a7643214.02100...@posting.google.com...
> > roge...@yahoo.com (RogerFGay) wrote in message
news:<4b6433c3.02100...@posting.google.com>...
> [snip]
> > > The mistake the government made, in the UK and the US was to believe
> > > that everyone would be stupid enough to buy the reform argument over
> > > and over again.
>
> I suggest you stop speaking for the UK system - time after time you
> show that you don't know much about it.
>
>


I suggest that you've already tried nationalism to help sell your extremist
socialist political views. National Socialism, as we know, went by the name
Naziism.


Barry Pearson

unread,
Oct 9, 2002, 3:01:44 PM10/9/02
to
"RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4b6433c3.02100...@posting.google.com...
> "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<tdGm9.788$kU4.101359@newsfep2-gui>...
> >
> > The second point is that it is probably a "stretch" to say that issues with
> > definitions in one of the United States counts as an "international issue".
I
> > would have seen it anyway because I subscribe to alt.child-support, but
> > uk.gov.agency.csa is deliberately scoped to the UK. If there really is "the
> > child support issue", I doubt if it is this one.
>
> The child support system in the US and UK are based on the same
> treaties and international conventions.
[snip]

I believe there are NO common treaties and international conventions
underpinning the US and UK systems.

I asked you to identify what you thought they were. You didn't answer. So I'll
ask again - please identify the "treaties and international conventions" that
you claim the US and UK systems are based on. Else stop making the claim.

Here are some treaties and international conventions that they are NOT based on:

UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Ratified: UK, 1976; USA, 1992.

UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Ratified: UK, 1976; USA, not yet.

UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
Ratified: UK, 1986; USA, 2002?

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
Ratified: UK, 1992; USA, not yet.

As you can see, not only does the USA tend to be late (if ever) ratifying such
conventions, but the dates don't match the dates for the child support
legislation in these countries. Child support is NOT being driven by treaties
and international conventions!

Barry Pearson

unread,
Oct 9, 2002, 4:58:40 PM10/9/02
to
"RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4b6433c3.02100...@posting.google.com...
[snip]

> An individual's personal life is his own business.
[snip]

Only if it isn't in conflict with other people. And that is just what child
support is all about.

When people separate, there are at least 3 stakeholders in potential conflict:
mother, father, children. If one of them calls upon authorities, perhaps the
state, for help, there is then another stakeholder: the taxpayers.

Where the stakeholders cannot come to their own agreement, it is necessary to
have an arbitration mechanism to sort out distribution of assets, care of the
children, and financial support for the children.

The discussion here is about the nature of that arbitration mechanism - I hope
that no one believes we don't need one!

Barry Pearson

unread,
Oct 10, 2002, 3:07:49 PM10/10/02
to
"Bad Man" <badm...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:anos84$rrh$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
[snip]

> Agreed. While I could accept Barry's argument in the first year or two of
> the CSA, that there has been no real attempt to ease the misery , and that
> the misery continues, demonstrates intent.

There has been a real attempt - the 2000 Act reform of the child support law.
(And, of course, before that the 1995 Act which made a significant set of
changes).

It now awaits a new computer system, and then it can start.

Barry Pearson

unread,
Oct 10, 2002, 3:37:56 PM10/10/02
to
"RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10340769...@news2.cybercity.dk...

> "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
> news:vSfo9.912$s52.85635@newsfep2-gui...
[snip]

> > I suggest you stop speaking for the UK system - time after time you
> > show that you don't know much about it.
>
> I suggest that you've already tried nationalism to help sell your extremist
> socialist political views. National Socialism, as we know, went by the
> name Naziism.

Earlier in this thread you said "We disagree with you that Marxist socialism


should rise again in the West after falling in the Soviet Union and elsewhere".

Now you accuse me of Nazism! In case you didn't know, this is different from
Marxism, and in fact the battle between the Marxist-like Russia and Nazi-Germany
was one of the bloodiest in history. I suggest you study history and decide what
you think I am guilty of.

What I am guilty of is developing a fact-based, evidence-based, view of child
maintenance and child support over the last century or two. I will continue to
do this, and document the results, so that in future people can see their way
through the bullshit.

Many nations initiated their child maintenance / child support policies long
ago, long before Marxism & Nazism were credible. They did so typically to reduce
their social security / welfare expenditure, by making the parents of the child
primarily responsible before the taxpayers has to provide. In other words,
typically as an anti-socialist measure. This is how child support started in the
USA, for example.

Those nations have continued to evolve their child maintenance / child support
policies since then. They have vastly different systems and laws from
one-another, implemented in different ways according to the national reference.
They obviously talk to one-another, which accounts for some cross-pollination of
ideas. But it is typically impossible to copy a scheme from one country to
another.

No international treaties & conventions were involved. Mostly they didn't even
exist when countries started to develop their child maintenance / child support
systems. Even where they did, some key countries haven't ratified them. For
example, the one international convention I know of with clear reference to
child support is the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. But the USA is
one of the 2 countries in the world that hasn't ratified it (the other is
Somalia). So it has not guided USA policy.

Martin Davies

unread,
Oct 10, 2002, 6:00:07 PM10/10/02
to
"Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message news:<eR0p9.7386$QY.5...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>...

> "RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4b6433c3.02100...@posting.google.com...
> [snip]
> > An individual's personal life is his own business.
> [snip]
>
> Only if it isn't in conflict with other people. And that is just what child
> support is all about.
>
> When people separate, there are at least 3 stakeholders in potential conflict:
> mother, father, children. If one of them calls upon authorities, perhaps the
> state, for help, there is then another stakeholder: the taxpayers.


Perhaps people feel that if they dump their kids, whoever they dump
the kids with shouldn't be able to get any help from the government?
Or if their partner takes the kids and leaves, again, no help from the
government?
Would people want to get rid of the welfare state while they are at
it?


In Scotland (which has a few different laws from the rest of the UK) a
child aged 12 or over can claim child support in their own right.
Not old enough to vote, not old enough to drive, not old enough to
consent to sex, but old enough to fill in a child support claim form
and demand child support.


>
> Where the stakeholders cannot come to their own agreement, it is necessary to
> have an arbitration mechanism to sort out distribution of assets, care of the
> children, and financial support for the children.
>

People can come to an agreement themselves, use
solicitors/bloodsuckers to come to an agreement (maybe with one side
claiming legal aid and running up big bills for both?), or use a third
party to work out an agreement.

Whether that 3rd party is the CSA, the courts, the local laird, or
family friend, thats debateable.
But sometimes a 3rd party is necessary - as many people have found
out.

Sometimes the woman wants too much child support than the man wants to
pay out.
Sometimes he wants to pay too little compared to what she wants.
Sometimes each of them has too many outgoings to be able to afford
much, so she wants enough to help raise the child (food, clothing etc)
and he wants to be able to run the car back and forth to work, or pay
bills etc.
Often there are debts from the relationship that have to be paid by
one or both.

So thats when they cannot agree - or will not agree.
I've used men and women above as the most common way things happen -
though you can easily reverse it (and not suprisingly, often women are
earning less than the men due to less time in the career, less hours
available to work etc, so a woman having to pay child support to a man
might find it harder to pay as much as the other way round).

> The discussion here is about the nature of that arbitration mechanism - I hope
> that no one believes we don't need one!


We do need one.
We just don't like what we have - which is why some of us are working
on what ideas could make up a better system.

Martin <><

Barry Pearson

unread,
Oct 10, 2002, 7:11:05 PM10/10/02
to
"RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4b6433c3.02100...@posting.google.com...

You said "We just don't agree with you that government's should act arbitrarily


with the intent to cause intense damage to a large group of citizens".

I don't believe for a second that the INTENT was "to cause intense damage to a
large group of citizens". Do you REALLY believe politicians are going to do
that?

But if you believe that, please supply evidence. Else accept that it is simply
your opinion.

Barry Pearson

unread,
Oct 12, 2002, 6:06:32 AM10/12/02
to
"RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10340768...@news2.cybercity.dk...

> "Martin Davies" <martin...@cableinet.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
> news:a7643214.02100...@posting.google.com...
> > roge...@yahoo.com (RogerFGay) wrote in message
> news:<4b6433c3.02100...@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > > The mistake the government made, in the UK and the US was to
> > > believe that everyone would be stupid enough to buy the reform
> > > argument over and over again.
> >
> > What is the alternitive in a democracy to reform?
> >
> > Whether they just tweak it, or start completely from scratch, to
> > me its reform.
>
> How many hundreds of years has the UK had to get child support right?

Like speed limits, tax percentages, reactions to new technologies, reactions to
other societal changes - child support and all of these things need to evolve.

> This idea that "democracy" requires continual re-evaluation and
> arbitrary modification of the way government manipulates
> individuals is way too far into the scale of extremist political views.

(I dispute "arbitrary").

Democracies need re-evaluation of many policies in the light of societal
changes, technology changes, economic changes, etc. The sort of child support
system you have with a small population and/or paper administration systems
and/or children leaving school in their early teens is likely to be different
from one in an era of a much larger population, big computers, and children
staying at school until their late teens.

(Totalitarion states can be a bit more rigid than this!)

> Just like ín the US, the courts in the UK had already figured out
> what "child support" is and what the fundamental rules are for making
> decisions.

No they hadn't - it is clear they had it badly wrong. They often used the
principle of making a small award so that the father could start a new family,
while expecting the state to support the mother and child. But the state -
really voter/taxpayers - didn't like this, and voted in a government to do
something about it.

Also, don't assume that there was just a court system before the CSA. There were
a number of ways of sorting out child support depending on circumstances, and
these combined in unsatisfactory ways. For example, there was the Liable
Relatives Unit as part of the Social Security system, trying to reduce social
security expenditure. And there were 2 (or more) court systems, crown courts and
magistrates courts.

> This new round of confusion and arbitrary manipulation is entirely
> artificial.

It is simplification, not confusion - see above. And certainly not arbitrary.

> It's abuse of power - corruption. That's what always happens when
> people abuse the concept of "democracy" to make it mean that the
> power of the elected extends into arbitrary manipulation of individuals.

When there is a conflict between people - winners & losers - that is what a
democracy has to do - decide the winners & losers. And child support is the
classic example of winners & losers, with sometimes 4 stakeholders (mother,
father, child, taxpayers).

RogerFGay

unread,
Oct 13, 2002, 6:16:50 AM10/13/02
to
"Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message news:<QzSp9.6152$345.2...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>...

> "RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:10340768...@news2.cybercity.dk...
>
>
> > How many hundreds of years has the UK had to get child support right?
>
> Like speed limits, tax percentages, reactions to new technologies, reactions to
> other societal changes - child support and all of these things need to evolve.
> Democracies need re-evaluation of many policies in the light of societal
> changes, technology changes, economic changes, etc.


It's impossible to discuss anything rationally with a leftist
extremist like yourself. Time has passed, therefore we need to change
things. Anything that is established is bad, because time has passed.
Your argument [snipped] that people in big cities must live in an
alternate reality plane is right out of the Marxist play-book.
Somebody forgot to tell you that we've had big cities for a very long
time. The transformation from agricultural societies happened way
before you were born. There was this thing called the Industrial
Revolution ... you missed that. Get out of Marx and into something
more up to date. The real world has passed you by.

We already understand the conclusion of your argument. It isn't new.
It isn't a modern adaptation. The individual should be killed, and we
should all, as a group, be subject to the capricious whims of
dictators implemented in arbitrary ways by simple-minded bureacrats.
The fact is, that it isn't up to you how other people adapt and cope
with the complexities of life. There is no need for a master plan that
treats people in bulk in every dimension and in every detail of their
lives. We have fought you since the beginning of man-kind and we will
fight you again, whenever you arise and no matter what it takes. We
fight you when you join small groups or act alone to assault us on the
streets and sneak into our homes to steal our belongings. We fight you
when you organize to subjugate and pillage en masse.

Your goal is to organize to defeat every other human within your
sphere, and it is opposed to our fundamental nature to let you get
away with it.

Dave

unread,
Oct 13, 2002, 2:56:07 PM10/13/02
to

"RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4b6433c3.02101...@posting.google.com...

> "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<QzSp9.6152$345.2...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>...
> > "RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:10340768...@news2.cybercity.dk...
> >
> >
> > > How many hundreds of years has the UK had to get child support right?
> >
> > Like speed limits, tax percentages, reactions to new technologies,
reactions to
> > other societal changes - child support and all of these things need to
evolve.
> > Democracies need re-evaluation of many policies in the light of societal
> > changes, technology changes, economic changes, etc.
>
>
> It's impossible to discuss anything rationally with a leftist
> extremist like yourself.

What is funny is that Barry posted here before that he leans more
Liberatarin. How is that for a stretch!

Time has passed, therefore we need to change
> things. Anything that is established is bad, because time has passed.
> Your argument [snipped] that people in big cities must live in an
> alternate reality plane is right out of the Marxist play-book.
> Somebody forgot to tell you that we've had big cities for a very long
> time. The transformation from agricultural societies happened way
> before you were born. There was this thing called the Industrial
> Revolution ... you missed that. Get out of Marx and into something
> more up to date. The real world has passed you by.
>
> We already understand the conclusion of your argument. It isn't new.
> It isn't a modern adaptation. The individual should be killed, and we
> should all, as a group, be subject to the capricious whims of
> dictators implemented in arbitrary ways by simple-minded bureacrats.
> The fact is, that it isn't up to you how other people adapt and cope
> with the complexities of life. There is no need for a master plan that
> treats people in bulk in every dimension and in every detail of their
> lives. We have fought you since the beginning of man-kind and we will
> fight you again, whenever you arise and no matter what it takes. We
> fight you when you join small groups or act alone to assault us on the
> streets and sneak into our homes to steal our belongings. We fight you
> when you organize to subjugate and pillage en masse.
>
> Your goal is to organize to defeat every other human within your
> sphere, and it is opposed to our fundamental nature to let you get
> away with it.

Amen brother.


Barry Pearson

unread,
Oct 13, 2002, 3:24:04 PM10/13/02
to
"RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4b6433c3.02101...@posting.google.com...

> "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<QzSp9.6152$345.2...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>...
> > "RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:10340768...@news2.cybercity.dk...
> >
> > > How many hundreds of years has the UK had to get child support
> > > right?
> >
> > Like speed limits, tax percentages, reactions to new technologies,
> > reactions to other societal changes - child support and all of these
> > things need to evolve. Democracies need re-evaluation of many
> > policies in the light of societal changes, technology changes,
> > economic changes, etc.
>
> It's impossible to discuss anything rationally with a leftist
> extremist like yourself.

Most people consider me to have somewhat right-wing views. You simply lack
judgement, or else you have a reason for pretending that my views are different
from what they are.

> Time has passed, therefore we need to change
> things. Anything that is established is bad, because time has passed.
> Your argument [snipped] that people in big cities must live in an
> alternate reality plane is right out of the Marxist play-book.

I made no such argument. I suggest you read what I said - you appear to be
fantasising weird notions then responding to them.

> Somebody forgot to tell you that we've had big cities for a very long
> time. The transformation from agricultural societies happened way
> before you were born. There was this thing called the Industrial
> Revolution ... you missed that.

No-one forgot to tell me that - you simply fantasised some bizarre view about
what I said (or else you deliberately lied about what I said for reasons best
known to yourself), then respnded to your own version. Why are you doing this?

> Get out of Marx and into something
> more up to date. The real world has passed you by.

Chuckle! You develop a litigation technology which nations that don't use
litigation for child support will never adopt, and you think I have been passed
by?

> We already understand the conclusion of your argument. It isn't new.
> It isn't a modern adaptation.

I'm glad you finally understand something. You appear, so far, to have
misunderstood everything!

> The individual should be killed, and we
> should all, as a group, be subject to the capricious whims of
> dictators implemented in arbitrary ways by simple-minded bureacrats.

That may be your view. But I suspect you of being a totalitarian - your views
against democracy are rather extreme. You appear to feel that a new generation
must not be allowed to replace the policies of past generations. Perhaps you
simply have preferences that correspond to some time in the past and wish that
the policies of that time could be frozen onto place - but not so. Time moves
on - my web site is called "Child Support Analysis for the 21st Century" because
it looks forward, not back.

Try looking forward yourself sometime - don't just keep looking back. It may be
unpleasant that democracy gives people you disagree with a voice, and sometimes
even lets them set the rules, but live with it - you don't to fix the rules you
want all the time.

Perhaps if you despise democracy so much you should do what this man did:

Political observer of the week
A factory worker who says he is sick of democracy has applied for political
asylum in Iraq. Constantin Simion, 52, spent most of his life living under
Nicolae Ceausescu's dictatorship in Romania and says everything "has gone
downhill" under democratic rule. "I cannot wait to become one of Saddam's
people," he says. " If Iraq says no, I'll try my luck with Libya or Cuba,
anything that is a totalitarian regime. I'm sick of democracy."

Sunday Times, 13th October 2002
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-444340,00.html

> The fact is, that it isn't up to you how other people adapt and cope
> with the complexities of life. There is no need for a master plan that
> treats people in bulk in every dimension and in every detail of their
> lives. We have fought you since the beginning of man-kind and we will
> fight you again, whenever you arise and no matter what it takes. We
> fight you when you join small groups or act alone to assault us on the
> streets and sneak into our homes to steal our belongings. We fight you
> when you organize to subjugate and pillage en masse.

Wow! Fight away! You really appear to have lost your grip on reality!

This is the 21st Century. Society is very different from the 20th Century
(although I'm not convinced that you caught up with the 20th Century!) Family
life is changing. The ways that men, women, and children interact are changing.
It is no longer so acceptable for courts to decide that separated fathers should
pay relatively little for their children so that they can start new families,
while leaving "the state" to support separated mothers bringing up their
children. That idea stopped in the UK at the start of the 1990s.

It is time to try to identify a balance of rights and responsibilities between
separated fathers, mothers, children, and taxpayers, for the finances for
raising children. It got screwed up in the past (although some people prefered
the past because they "got away with it"). This may mean that instead of
separated fathers having the money to start new families, they should instead
have the opportunities to help raise the children they already have, even though
this may not leave them enough to start a new family. Children cost a lot - Who
should pay?

My Agenda has shared parenting as its first (and most important) item. It does
not, and will not, have any means for parents to walk away from their
responsibilities.

> Your goal is to organize to defeat every other human within your
> sphere, and it is opposed to our fundamental nature to let you get
> away with it.

Wow! So you think THAT is my goal? Just read that sentence - it must rank as one
of the most stupid sentences ever posted to Usenet!

I am still desperately trying to believe that you don't REALLY believe the
awesome crap you have been posting, and that you are simply having a joke at my
expense and the expense of anyone else reading your statements. But you are so
consistent with your paranoid conspiracy theory rubbish that I may have to come
to the conclusion that you ACTUALLY believe it! But could ANYONE in the world
actually mean what you have just said?

Look at some of your recent statements:

"Child support reforms have been about changing the system generally, from one
with individual rights / i.e. human rights and essential freedom from government
control and manipulation, to one in which the individual is dead and only a
centrally controlling, exercising unlimited arbitrary power matters. I've more
than once mentioned that the transition has been international. Somebody is
murdering the western world".
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=4b6433c3.0207300619.7adb02df@posting.g
oogle.com

"These policies that we're discussing were well developed in the communist world
and they were imported to the west. There is a clear distinction between the
system that defines western civilization and the socialist system. I can only
believe that you know that, and you've got me wondering why you're taking me
through the paces of false logic. There are bureacrats in London, therefore
we're all commies anyway". "These policies that we're discussing were well
developed in the communist world and they were imported to the west."
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=4b6433c3.0207310007.32127466@posting.g
oogle.com

"We don't need theory to identify the child support system as communist. It's an
established fact that the child support system recently imported to the west,
including rigid en masse formulae for determining the amount to be ordered and
rigid enforcement policies that deny individual rights were imported from
socialist countries. It's a fact."
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=4b6433c3.0207...@posting.go
ogle.com

"Yes, child support reforms have been part of an international movement. That
much is certainly an obvious fact by now to you and I."
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=4b6433c3.0208030626.38c098d8@posting.g
oogle.com

"And there is another thread in this forum "Family verses Communism" in which
the specific ideas of anti-family Marxist Communism can and are easily compared
with current child support reforms in the west and the accompanying history of
propaganda -- which is certainly tied to radical Marxist feminism, an
international political movement."
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=4b6433c3.0208030626.38c098d8@posting.g
oogle.com

"Did you know that communism, in the minds of Marxist communists, is the perfect
democracy? It's pure democracy, and pure democracy sucks. It's one of the most
unstable, inhuman, and oppressive systems ever invented."
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=4b6433c3.0208030626.38c098d8@posting.g
oogle.com

"You reject the western rule of law and are obviously working toward
international socialist rule."
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=4b6433c3.0208050219.79e6746b@posting.g
oogle.com

You reject the western rule of law. Look at what that's done for countries
outside of the west. Once you're outside the US and Western Europe (go a little
farther east) you'll find burning homes and bombed out buildings as the direct
result of raw group politics. You'll find (socialist) systems that exploit group
politics, intensify conflict, and then use one group to hold another in check.
You'll find rule by religous sects and pseudo-religous war-lords related to
oppression and eternal war."
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=4b6433c3.0208050219.79e6746b@posting.g
oogle.com

"Barry's told us flat out that his agenda is to push internationalism (while its
still heavily influenced by the Marxist left)."
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=4b6433c3.0208110810.40a99701@posting.g
oogle.com

I have asked you a couple of times to identify the treaties and conventions in
your statement "The child support system in the US and UK are based on the same
treaties and international conventions". You haven't responded, as far as I can
tell. Since there are no such treaties and conventions this is not surprising. I
will keep asking.

I am also building up a map of countries, treaties & conventions, and child
support evolution, so that it will be absolutely clear that this is not an
international conspiracy, but in fact the normal sort of evolution of national
policies supported by cross-pollination of useful ideas where relevant. Child
maintenance and child support are the natural responses of countries struggling
with the issues of the finances of raising the children of separated families.
Child maintenance typically started from the 17th to the 19th Centuries, long
before they could have been influenced by Marxism.

If anyone has valuable material that I should be aware of to help me build this
picture, please post it or email me.

Barry Pearson

unread,
Oct 13, 2002, 5:48:08 PM10/13/02
to
"RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:4b6433c3.02100...@posting.google.com...
[snip]

> The child support system in the US and UK are based
> on the same treaties and international conventions.
[snip]

Please identify what such treaties and conventions you think there are.
(But I won't hold my breath - I don't believe there are any!)

I've already asked you twice for this identification, and my requests
are in the Google Groups archive:

http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=uLln9.4724$h43....@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net

RFG: The child support system in the US and UK are based on the same
treaties and international conventions.

BP: Not true. (But you are welcome to post identification of those


treaties and international conventions so that your assertion can

be examined). The child support system in the UK originated long


before there were such treaties, etc. The origins were probably
in the early 17th Century, when the public supported those who
were unable to support themselves, but sought reimbursement by
imposing a legal liability upon financially able relatives.
(Finer Report).

http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=B7%o9.6862$QY.4...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net

RFG: The child support system in the US and UK are based on the same
treaties and international conventions.

BP: I believe there are NO common treaties and international conventions


underpinning the US and UK systems. I asked you to identify what you
thought they were. You didn't answer. So I'll ask again - please identify
the "treaties and international conventions" that you claim the US and UK
systems are based on. Else stop making the claim. Here are some treaties
and international conventions that they are NOT based on:

(I've snipped the list).

I intend to keep challenging your false statements about the development
of child maintenance / support across the world.

RogerFGay

unread,
Oct 14, 2002, 3:46:02 AM10/14/02
to
"Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message news:<OXlq9.4340$JJ4....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>...

> "RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:4b6433c3.02100...@posting.google.com...
> [snip]
> > The child support system in the US and UK are based
> > on the same treaties and international conventions.
> [snip]
>
> Please identify what such treaties and conventions you think there are.
> (But I won't hold my breath - I don't believe there are any!)
>
> I've already asked you twice for this identification, and my requests
> are in the Google Groups archive:
>
>

I've been perfectly open with such information, although I think
anyone who wants to understand how things work in detail should start
with the links page at my web site and spend a good bit of time
tracking information. Start with:

HAGUE CONFERENCE ON PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW
CONFÉRENCE DE LA HAYE DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVÉ
MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS
http://www.hcch.net/e/workprog/maint.html

The Hague conferences, specific meetings on the topic of maintenance
obligations, yield agreements that extend the details beyond what is
formally agreed in the written Conference. You won't see the
correlation between issues at the meetings and current policy without
getting a summary reports from conferences. The other links on my
links page under "international" provide information about
international organizations to which some of the really major players
in international child support reform belong. Information and policy
preferences are also shared with people from many countries through
the activities of those private organizations, establishing a set of
"conventions" shared by this particular small group of people. These
movers and shakers in individual countries then influence the policy
within those countries along the lines of what members of the group
have established as convention. Examples of movers and shakers in the
US include Irwin Garfinkel, Sara McLananan, and Merigold Meli. They
got the ideas for child support reform from socialist countries like
Soviet Russia, and have subsequently had the most influence on policy
changes in the US, Australia, New Zealand, and indirectly in a number
of other countries, including in the UK.

For those who are sincere about historical research and understanding
how international child support policy is formulated, I suggest
looking through the "international" links on my links page:

http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/5910/links.html

For Barry, I can already imagine the load of crap he's going to post
to try to get around this.

RogerFGay

unread,
Oct 14, 2002, 3:55:42 AM10/14/02
to
"Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message news:<SSjq9.3598$JJ4....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>...

You're going to have a tough time selling the idea that we must
transform our form of "democracy" from its established liberal roots
to totalitarian bureacracy because the population is growing. Your
argument is that there are now too many people for anyone to have
rights. We can no longer be in any sense "free" now that there are
more people and "big computers." I snipped that part of your
commentary from my last response to you in this sub-thread, but you
just have to go back to your post that I previously responded to and
its right there. It amazes me that in an online forum such as this,
where there's an actualy permenent record of what was said, that some
people are stupid enough to deny saying what they said when it's so
easy to check. That kind of trick might work for you in other settings
Barry, but it doesn't work here.

Barry Pearson

unread,
Oct 16, 2002, 6:04:58 AM10/16/02
to
"RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4b6433c3.0210...@posting.google.com...

> "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<OXlq9.4340$JJ4....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>...
> > "RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4b6433c3.02100...@posting.google.com...
> > [snip]
> > > The child support system in the US and UK are based
> > > on the same treaties and international conventions.
> > [snip]
> >
> > Please identify what such treaties and conventions you think there are.
> > (But I won't hold my breath - I don't believe there are any!)
> >
> > I've already asked you twice for this identification, and my requests
> > are in the Google Groups archive:
>
> I've been perfectly open with such information, although I think
> anyone who wants to understand how things work in detail should start
> with the links page at my web site and spend a good bit of time
> tracking information. Start with:
>
> HAGUE CONFERENCE ON PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW
> CONFÉRENCE DE LA HAYE DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVÉ
> MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS
> http://www.hcch.net/e/workprog/maint.html

The Hague Conference has nothing whatsoever to do with the UK's Child Support
Agency.

First:
The Conference's purpose is to work for the progressive unification of the rules
of private international law. Note "private". Its mission is to facilitate both
the relationships between private parties across international borders and
international legal transactions. In effect, it is establishing a framework to
enable litigation to work across borders, so that people can have more
confidence in international commerce and society.

Some examples of cross-border frameworks: civil procedure, service of process,
taking of evidence abroad, legalisation, conflicts of laws relating to
testamentary dispositions, maintenance obligations, recognition of divorces,
protection of minors, international child abduction and intercountry adoption.
Some of the Hague Conventions deal with the determination of the applicable law,
some with the conflict of jurisdictions, some with the recognition and
enforcement of foreign judgments and some with administrative and judicial
co-operation between authorities. Some of the Hague Conventions combine one or
more of these aspects of private international law.

Second:
The Conference does not tell governments how to legislate and operate their
domestic law. (Actually, on request it will provide assistance in the form of
expert advice, and some countries trying to establish their own rule of law have
asked for help, which is non-binding).

Third:
The UK, at least, does not simply accept everything the Conference says.
Typically the UK enacts a special law for the purpose, taking into account
relevant conventions. For example, certain internation conventions on reciprocal
maintenance enforcement were given power in the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal
Enforcement) Act 1992 and The Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders
(Hague Convention Countries) Order 1993. The UK government isn't dictated to, it
chooses what to buy into.

The USA, I understand, tends to work the same. It is worth looking at the states
that have signed up to the various cross-border maintenance conventions - I
don't see the USA in the list, although the UK is in the list for one of them -
I believe that this FOLLOWED the UK's Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal
Enforcement) Act 1972 (which has now been superceded by the 1992 Act). So the
sequence is - work with the Conference to help make the conventions suitable,
then where relevant go through the standard legislative process to make a law,
then sign the convention with whatever reservations arose in the legislation.
The conventions are not binding on Parliament, which will buy into what it
chooses, and opt-out of bits it doesn't like.

Fourth:
The UK's Child Support Agency is completely separate from the UK's law on
cross-border maintenance, and hence separate from the Hague Conference. Any case
that falls within the jurisdiction of the CSA isn't within the scope of the
convention, and any case that is within the scope of the convention isn't within
the jurisdiction of the CSA. The UK's involvement with the Conference is via the
Lord Chancellor's Department (hence the court system). The CSA fits elsewhere -
currently into the social security system.

> The Hague conferences, specific meetings on the topic of maintenance
> obligations, yield agreements that extend the details beyond what is
> formally agreed in the written Conference. You won't see the
> correlation between issues at the meetings and current policy without
> getting a summary reports from conferences.

See above - all that actually matters in what is published in the conventions,
and then the UK Parliament makes up its own mind about whether to accept the
words as they are or else put something else into law. If the UK signs up to the
convention, it will do so with reservations as determined by the primacy of
Parliament. But it is the legislation that operates in the UK, not the
convention.

> The other links on my
> links page under "international" provide information about
> international organizations to which some of the really major players
> in international child support reform belong. Information and policy
> preferences are also shared with people from many countries through
> the activities of those private organizations, establishing a set of
> "conventions" shared by this particular small group of people. These
> movers and shakers in individual countries then influence the policy
> within those countries along the lines of what members of the group
> have established as convention. Examples of movers and shakers in the
> US include Irwin Garfinkel, Sara McLananan, and Merigold Meli. They
> got the ideas for child support reform from socialist countries like
> Soviet Russia, and have subsequently had the most influence on policy
> changes in the US, Australia, New Zealand, and indirectly in a number
> of other countries, including in the UK.

There is a very simple fact - the UK's Child Support Agency (and the 1991 Act it
is based upon) is very different from any other child support I have identified
in the world. It was driven as a right-wing anti-socialist measure designed to
reduce social security expenditure. (The courts had failed). In spite of
consulting with other countries, it ignored all the lessons, and went its own
way. Which is partly why it suffered the problems it did, and is undergoing
reform.

But, in fact, right across the world, there are many different child maintenance
/ child support models. They operate in different ways - through courts, central
offices (and these can be in different parts of the government system), local
offices, etc. (Sometimes there isn't a child maintenance / support system). They
started at different times in the countries' histories (England probably started
formal child maintenance in 1601, if not earlier). They evolve at different
rates according to the domestic situation in the country - its current political
flavor, social conditions, economic conditions, etc. They have different policy
objectives (although typically nowadays these are either the reduction in social
security / welfare expenditure or the reduction of child poverty).

They interact with other domestic systems in vastly different ways (which they
have to, of course, because those other systems are vastly different from
country to country). Child support law cannot be common across different
countries. They fit into different constitutional structures. The awards are
determined in different ways - negotiation, litigation, complex formula, simple
formula, various "escape" mechanisms (departures, etc), different appeal
systems, etc. They have different enforcement mechanisms. (They even have
different names! The UK's is called "child support maintenance").

Actual awards vary widely from country to country - I believe that right-wing
countries will tend to have less other state support for children and will tend
to make higher child support awards as a result. Countries with a more socialist
flavour (eg. Denmark) will provide extra state assistance and so tend to make
lower child support awards. (I am still researching this theory).

I think you are reading too much into the fact that some people (who speak
English) with knowledge of child support in one country talk to some politicians
(who speak English) in other countries, at the time that those politicians need
to evolve their child support systems to meet current policy objectives. The
UK's experience demonstrates that those "experts" have just as much or as little
influence as the government in those countries choose to let them have. There
are no valid excuses about international conspiracies - countries make their own
laws, and politicians must take the blame themselves. One thing the USA has
demonstrated time after time is how resistant it is to influences from
elsewhere, such as international treaties and conventions. The one significant
international convention that mentions child support by parents (the UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child) has been ratified by all nations in the
world except 2 - the USA and Somalia.

And, of course, when it comes to English-speakers who offer advice and are
trying to influence policy, you and I both fall into that category. Are YOU part
of an international conspiracy? (I'm not).

You are welcome to study the reform process that the UK has been running since
1997. It is described at the following URL, and this provides access to all the
debates, committee work, consultation and policy papers, etc. I defy you to
identify any conspiracies there.
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/information_and_explanation/reform/reforme
d_scheme_where_to_read.htm

You can link to lots more information about the reforms from:
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/csa_reform_programme.htm

> For those who are sincere about historical research and understanding
> how international child support policy is formulated, I suggest
> looking through the "international" links on my links page:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/5910/links.html
>
> For Barry, I can already imagine the load of crap he's going to post
> to try to get around this.

I simply post facts, and they are sufficient to undermine your conspiracy
theories. I am starting to build a picture of the evolution of child maintenance
/ child support in various countries, showing dates of changes plus dates of
other significant events such as treaties and conventions, etc. I will be
publishing this on my web site, hopefully starting with the outline pages with a
few details ready for the 1st November.

RogerFGay

unread,
Oct 21, 2002, 2:31:05 PM10/21/02