Home Politics & Debate
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Anyone is welcome to join. Sign up here
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Child Support as USA Politics.

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
I am NOT campaigning here in the UK as I just want to discuss such things, but I am a candidate in my Maryland USA running for the US Senate 2012, my website click = HERE, and if I win then my politics will affect the entire USA.

My point and platform is to radically reform the Child Support laws under US federal mandate. Link HERE.

As like the law says the c/s must be taken as a percentage but instead the State Courts only order fixed set amounts which is severely abusive and detrimental to all concerned.

Thereby the laws have unjustly turned parenting into a crime and turned parents into criminals and it destroys the family unit and alienates the children.

The system needs to be stopped or dramatically reformed and yet most people are just determined to pretend that the injustices and ruin are just acceptable conditions.

Child Support claims to be helping children when it is really just playing politics with our society.

So I was wondering if anyone here has any input onto this subject?

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    A sceptical man would be suspicious of your SEO motives.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't think you've done a very good job explaining exactly what the problem is. I've read your website and your post (the other website being full of pretty dense legal-speak) and I still don't really know how the system currently works or why this is a problem. If I was an American voter, I don't think I'd be especially motivated about this issue based on what you've written. Maybe give us an example of a (hypothetical) couple and how the current CS system is a problem for them?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hi.

    A sceptical man would be suspicious of your SEO motives.

    I had to search out what that "SEO" acronym means, which turns out to be an irony for me.

    SEO = Search Engine Optimization.

    I take that as a compliment that some one might suspect that I might know and do such a thing.

    The fact is that if you search my name on any search engine then I already know that the results are already cluttered with both recent and years old results floating around and I have no control over any of it.

    I don't think you've done a very good job explaining exactly what the problem is. I've read your website and your post (the other website being full of pretty dense legal-speak) and I still don't really know how the system currently works or why this is a problem. If I was an American voter, I don't think I'd be especially motivated about this issue based on what you've written. Maybe give us an example of a (hypothetical) couple and how the current CS system is a problem for them?

    Having and giving out deeply informative info is not necessarily a politically wise thing to do, and it is never a wise thing in a political campaign, and that is not my doing as I am a late comer into the game and I did not make the rules.

    BUT, it just so happens that I do have a way of explaining the Child Support and Custody law problem with an example:
    ===
    Most people (even those across the lake) know Oprah Winfrey, link to Stedman HERE, so lets say Oprah and Stedman had ten (10) children, and all 10 are still minor age.

    They never got married and they just now separate, so the law demands that Stedman pay millions of dollars per child in Child Support because they do live rich. But more so is that the Child Support gets back dated because they were not married so Stedman now owes over $100 million in arrears (10 years + 10 children + $1M per child = $100M cash), but he never really shared Oprah's money so the law's Child Support order puts him directly into the poor house and then Stedman goes into jail as a deadbeat Dad because he is dead-broke.

    So the 10 children are all fine living with Oprah who has over a billion dollars (maybe $2B) but the father Stedman is still required by law to pay the Child Support in full.

    This scenario means the law would not be serving any one, it is not helping society and not helping Oprah and Stedman's children, and it is ridiculous for the law to put a father like that into jail, especially because jail is for criminals and not to punish parents, but the laws would do it anyway as it does this everyday now to real parents who are not so famous.

    And then lets say that Oprah being such a wonderful person as she surely is - then Oprah does not want her children's father to be in jail and does not want Stedman to be called a "deadbeat" and she wants her children to love and respect their father, so Oprah either forgives the debt or she pays the Child Support off herself, or some other legal maneuver since the super rich do have more options then do the poorer families and poorer parents, but that would only mean that Oprah was circumventing the laws which other citizens can not do or can not afford to do because the law itself is dysfunctional.

    This scenario which can turn Stedman into a "deadbeat" Dad is a demonostration that the law itself is fundamentally wrong and in fact those Child Support and Custody laws are evil.

    Real life ordinary citizen - parents are trashed this way every day and it is always being done unjustly and senselessly hurting the families involved.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think what he's trying to get at in UK terms is the possibility of means testing both parents to see what their ability to pay is. If the mother is a multi-billionaire then forcing the man to pay anything is unfair.

    In some ways it sounds fair, however I wouldn't want to see a scenario where the father shirks all responsibility. The father should still bear some of the financial burden of raising a child.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    I think what he's trying to get at in UK terms is the possibility of means testing both parents to see what their ability to pay is. If the mother is a multi-billionaire then forcing the man to pay anything is unfair.

    In some ways it sounds fair, however I wouldn't want to see a scenario where the father shirks all responsibility. The father should still bear some of the financial burden of raising a child.

    :yes: Even if only nominally
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't think that's what he's getting at. The issue is the back-dating of the child support. The idea that either party should have to pay back-dated child support to cover a time when they were living together as a family (married or not) is completely ridiculous, of course. The only time that back-dated child support would be appropriate was if a parent knew about their responsibilities but actively avoided paying child support. And even then, it may make no sense to bankrupt them to the point of jail (although that's more an issue of America's overuse of prison as a punishment for minor crimes than anything else).

    My favourite one of these was when Ray Parlour was ordered to continue paying maintenance to his ex-wife after they divorced, because she had "grown accustomed" to a certain standard of living. This was, I believe, on top of the standard divorce settlement of half the estate.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Response.
    Whowhere wrote: »

    I think what he's trying to get at in UK terms is the possibility of means testing both parents to see what their ability to pay is. If the mother is a multi-billionaire then forcing the man to pay anything is unfair.

    In some ways it sounds fair, however I wouldn't want to see a scenario where the father shirks all responsibility. The father should still bear some of the financial burden of raising a child.

    The example of the mother (as the Custodial) being a Billionaire was just to expose the senseless fundamental ideas of the Child Support as misguided and absurd.

    The children are all fine and well provided throughout the USA and in the UK, which means the so called Child Support is NOT supporting the children at all. The only thing that the Child Support is doing is punishing parents under the brute force of law based on unnatural ideas of fairness which needs to be stopped.

    If the Mom has taken the child(ren) away from their father then it is the Mom who is inflicting damages onto the children and onto their father, so such a home wrecker does not deserve to be paid any money.
    piccolo wrote: »

    :yes: Even if only nominally

    Same as answered above.

    You are NOT referring to helping or supporting children but just punishing parents.

    It is NOT the job of proper Government to punish parents based on superficial ideas of fairness.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    JP Cusick wrote: »
    If the Mom has taken the child(ren) away from their father then it is the Mom who is inflicting damages onto the children and onto their father, so such a home wrecker does not deserve to be paid any money.

    WTF are you on about? The children have to live with one parent. That doesn't mean they're "taking them away" from the other parent. Both parents have to contribute to the cost of bringing up a child to the best of their ability, with the state helping out when necessary. And both parents have a right to spend time with the children, although for obvious reasons, the kids have to live with one of them.

    So when you say you want to "reform" child support, what you actually mean is that you want to scrap it? You say kids are well provided for in the UK and USA, but where do you think that money comes from? What you seem to want is the rest of society to pick up the tab for these parents who are too cheap to contribute to the cost of raising their own child.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Response.

    WTF are you on about? The children have to live with one parent. That doesn't mean they're "taking them away" from the other parent. Both parents have to contribute to the cost of bringing up a child to the best of their ability, with the state helping out when necessary. And both parents have a right to spend time with the children, although for obvious reasons, the kids have to live with one of them.

    So when you say you want to "reform" child support, what you actually mean is that you want to scrap it? You say kids are well provided for in the UK and USA, but where do you think that money comes from? What you seem to want is the rest of society to pick up the tab for these parents who are too cheap to contribute to the cost of raising their own child.

    When I become a US Senator and I issue the reforms of those evil Child Support and Custody laws throughout the entire USA then you will see how everything will be so very much better than what we have now.

    Not everyone can see or have the vision but after it gets going then it will become more clear to all.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So when you say you want to "reform" child support, what you actually mean is that you want to scrap it?

    The Tories must have got their vocabulary from somewhere...

    I refuse to believe that all families in the US are so well off and so fairly provided for that legal intervention would never, ever be required.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    JP Cusick wrote: »
    When I become a US Senator and I issue the reforms of those evil Child Support and Custody laws throughout the entire USA then you will see how everything will be so very much better than what we have now.

    Not everyone can see or have the vision but after it gets going then it will become more clear to all.

    I some how dont think you will become a US senator if you are taking your time to post about your policies in a UK based forum.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Response.
    piccolo wrote: »

    I refuse to believe that all families in the US are so well off and so fairly provided for that legal intervention would never, ever be required.

    The problem is that the Child Support and Custody laws do intervene when it is NOT required and not necessary.

    Otherwise when citizens (parents with children) are in need of assistance then the Gov is to intervene by providing Public Assistance to its citizens.

    The Gov is not to provide harassment and degradation against the poor parents of poor children.

    In China they made a law of one (1) child per couple, but here in the USA we say only richer parents can legally have children, and all poorer parents who can not pay the Child Support orders will be harassed and degraded and incarcerated.

    The laws are barbaric and inhuman.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Surely it is easier to raise a child with higher income, never mind any consideration about ability to pay child support?

    I will reiterate again, if you seriously think you have any chance of winning a seat in the Senate, then why are you taking any time at all to post on a UK website.

    I'm pretty sure if someone emailed your rivals with a link to this thread, that you would get laughed out of the race altogether. Out of interest, where are you polling?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    G-Raffe wrote: »
    where are you polling?

    The internet mainly, apparently. It's a big 'ole constituency.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    JP Cusick wrote: »
    In China they made a law of one (1) child per couple, but here in the USA we say only richer parents can legally have children, and all poorer parents who can not pay the Child Support orders will be harassed and degraded and incarcerated.

    And apparently you say that one of the poor parents should be forced to pay the full cost of raising a child, and the other one should be able to get away with contributing nothing. I suspect most of Western Europe has far better public assistance than the average low-income American parent, and yet parents are still expected to contribute to the cost of raising their own child.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Response.
    G-Raffe wrote: »

    Surely it is easier to raise a child with higher income, never mind any consideration about ability to pay child support?

    The more traditional and practical way to raise a child is with the two biological parents being married or in a committed relationship together.

    Link here = Heritage Foundation - No. 1 weapon against Childhood poverty is marriage.
    G-Raffe wrote: »

    I will reiterate again, if you seriously think you have any chance of winning a seat in the Senate, then why are you taking any time at all to post on a UK website.

    This UK forum is readily available here in Maryland by the magic of the Internet.

    Clearly I am not campaigning over in the UK but I do want to spread the news about the evils of the Child Support and Custody laws as they do cross around the world.
    G-Raffe wrote: »

    I'm pretty sure if someone emailed your rivals with a link to this thread, that you would get laughed out of the race altogether.

    Search my name and you will see that I am all over the place, and people in the USA do know about my campaign.

    In 2010, my running mate Mr Lang and I ran for Lt Governor and Governor of Maryland and we got 46,411 votes, link HERE, so I do have a voters base for 2012.
    G-Raffe wrote: »

    Out of interest, where are you polling?

    I do not quite know what that means.

    I am a candidate in the USA, State of Maryland, link here = Board of Elections.

    ==========================

    The internet mainly, apparently. It's a big 'ole constituency.

    The Internet does give a far bigger playing field for some fanatic radical as like myself.

    If one does not consider things in very large terms then they would not be interested in politics.

    ============================

    And apparently you say that one of the poor parents should be forced to pay the full cost of raising a child, and the other one should be able to get away with contributing nothing. I suspect most of Western Europe has far better public assistance than the average low-income American parent, and yet parents are still expected to contribute to the cost of raising their own child.

    The parent with "Custody" is effectively taking the child(ren) away from the other parent so if one takes the child then they are to provide the custody in full.

    If the one is not prepared to provide the full custody then they have no business having the custody of any child.

    If one parents wants the other parent to help in raising their child(ren) then that is what we call as "marriage" but they do not want to get married so instead our laws attack the other parent for no crime, no wrong doing, for no justification at all.

    Parents want fairness but do not want marriage then the law and Gov has no business enforcing such an immoral stand.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What about fathers that abandon their kids and wives, do they not need to pay their way?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    JP Cusick wrote: »
    The parent with "Custody" is effectively taking the child(ren) away from the other parent so if one takes the child then they are to provide the custody in full.
    No they're not. My mum got custody of me. Actually, I chose what parent I wanted to live with. At no point did that involve "taking me" away from my dad. I still saw him all the time.
    JP Cusick wrote: »
    If the one is not prepared to provide the full custody then they have no business having the custody of any child.
    So suddenly you think the right to care for a child is linked to your ability to pay? Despite railing against this type of thinking earlier?
    JP Cusick wrote: »
    If one parents wants the other parent to help in raising their child(ren) then that is what we call as "marriage" but they do not want to get married so instead our laws attack the other parent for no crime, no wrong doing, for no justification at all.
    You might want to look up a few definitions, but a marriage is an arrangement between two adults. It has absolutely nothing to do with children.
    JP Cusick wrote: »
    Parents want fairness but do not want marriage then the law and Gov has no business enforcing such an immoral stand.
    Who are you to say how people should live their lives? If people don't want to be in a relationship but happen to have a child together, that's none of your business. Who it is the business of is the two people who made the child, who then have equal rights and responsibilities towards it. You seem far too concerned with the rights of the parents, and not very concerned with the rights of the child to have both parents contributing to its upbringing. You seem to be trying to use this situation in order to force people into your preferred way of living.

    Incidentally, in a genuine case of one parent denying access to another, I think it's entirely legitimate for that parent to withhold child support pending court action.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    JP Cusick wrote: »
    The more traditional and practical way to raise a child is with the two biological parents being married or in a committed relationship together.

    Link here = Heritage Foundation - No. 1 weapon against Childhood poverty is marriage.

    Yes, a committed relationship. Not getting married because society expects or for financial reasons, like you're proposing. The expectation to get married and have kids as soon as possible is one of the premier causes of poverty in the world. The claim that marriage reduces poverty in America (or the UK) is simply caused by someone not being able to tell the difference between correlation and causality. Children of married parents tend to do better in a whole host of ways. But why is this? It's nothing to do with marriage itself. Married couples that have children are usually, by definition, in a committed relationship. The children are, more often than not, planned and wanted. But this is only the case in a society where people are free to marry whom they choose, and are not pressured into it by society, family, etc. In countries where people are pressured into marrying someone they don't love, prevented (or strongly discouraged) from divorcing, and then having children, you have high levels of poverty, high birth rates, and high levels of domestic violence.

    Unplanned children will always be an issue, and it's not one you'll solve by effectively coercing people into getting married to someone they don't love. Comparing single parents to happily married couples isn't relevant, because that's not the option you're presented with. Your three options in response to an unplanned baby are single parent, separate parents working together, or two parents getting married even though they don't love each other. These are the points of comparison, so to bring anything else into the discussion is simply dishonest. Of course, the real way to deal with this issue is to cut down on unplanned pregnancies in the first place, but America and Britain both seem to be a bit prudish to deal with that particular issue like grown ups.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Seriously, go do some campaigning in the USA.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Response.
    G-Raffe wrote: »

    What about fathers that abandon their kids and wives, do they not need to pay their way?

    I say we need to see in the above quote that this is NOT about "supporting children" as the Child Support law pretends to be - no, as quoted above it is ONLY about attacking the other parent (mostly fathers) to punish the father and punish the parents without any regard at all for supporting the children.

    In this world we now know that a child who grows up alienated from either of their own biological parents (the Mom or Dad) then that hurts the child more so than anything else.

    And in fact just because the two parents are separated then we do not have homeless or starving children running around because there are more than sufficient services and options available in that absolutely no child goes without any of their true needs being filled except by the abuse or neglect or the incompetence of the Custodial.

    The children are NOT in need, and the ignorant Child Support is ONLY about punishing the other parent based on some ridiculous idea of fairness.
    G-Raffe wrote: »

    Seriously, go do some campaigning in the USA.

    Not to worry, as everything here is going along just fine.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Response.

    Who are you to say how people should live their lives? If people don't want to be in a relationship but happen to have a child together, that's none of your business. Who it is the business of is the two people who made the child, who then have equal rights and responsibilities towards it. You seem far too concerned with the rights of the parents, and not very concerned with the rights of the child to have both parents contributing to its upbringing. You seem to be trying to use this situation in order to force people into your preferred way of living.

    I am saying that too, as the parenting done by parents for their own children is none of my business as it is none of your business and it is not the business of Gov or of Courts or of the laws.

    We need to get out of the parents' business and let the parents to take care of their own parenting as they them selves see fit.

    It is different when there is physical abuse or harmful neglect or parental incompetence - yes, but that is a far different subject.

    It is the ignorant and inhuman Child Support and Custody laws which are forcing families and parenting into a twisted and inhuman life style and it needs to be stopped.
Sign In or Register to comment.