Well once again we see another lie exposed which had been spread about mothers by fathers/mens rights advocates. The 30% figure associated with paternity fraud has been used for years by men trying to paint a large number of women as either loose women who didn’t know who their child’s father was or as simple sponges trying to ‘father shop’ for the highest income man available to increase her child support.
It was another version of the ‘welfare queen’ slur of the Reagan era but this time expanded to include ALL women, not just public assistance recipients.
Of course this has been extremely detrimental, not just to the reputation of women in general, but to the self-esteem of mothers in particular who felt we were always on the defensive to justify every mother’s conduct. Everywhere from the halls of Congress to The Jerry Springer show this lie was accepted as a truth and womens’ reputations suffered because of it. Not to mention that I’m sure many state’s public policies and family court Judges’ vicious custody rulings against mothers emanated from believing this myth.
Thus, I’m happy to see that this horrific lie put out by men, probably trying to discredit most mothers' honesty, has finally been exposed for what it really is: just another URBAN MYTH.
"Paternity Fraud an Urban Myth: study
June 29, 2005 - 6:19PM
Alienated fathers' rights groups and the paternity testing industry are responsible for urban myths about paternity fraud, a university study has found.
Professor of Sociology at Melbourne's Swinburne University of Technology, Michael Gilding, said figures suggesting that up to 30 per cent of paternity tests showed that the nominated father was not the parent of the child in question were based on unreliable sources or studies.
He said the correct figure was closer to one per cent.
"What I found was that there were a couple of offhand statements which have been repeated so often they've been accepted as fact and when you actually look at the evidence, it's really weak," Professor Gilding said.
"In a way the evidence we have to work with is indirect but I've used every bit of public information I could find in the world for the last 30 years," he said.
"I thought for medical textbooks to be saying 10 per cent and for labs to be saying 20 per cent, there must be a pretty good basis. But there wasn't."
"On the whole in western societies I think it's somewhere between one per cent and three per cent and I think in Australia it's around one per cent."
Co-director of the Men's Rights Agency, Sue Price, said Professor Gilding's claims were "rubbish".
She said an American study of 44 blood bank testing clinics worldwide gave a figure of 28 per cent.
She gave further examples of a 1972 test in England, which she said found 30 per cent of husbands could not have been the fathers of their children and a 1997 test which revealed paternal discrepancies of up to 20 to 30 per cent.
"These are cited studies, I don't think you can just dismiss these," she said.
"I don't think there's any evidence whatsoever to prove that there is only three to four per cent from these figures. You have to look at these early tests that have been done."
A spokeswoman for Genetic Technologies Limited, a group which conducts DNA paternity tests in Australia, said their figures showed a 10 to 20 per cent exclusion rate of tested fathers.
However she said the sample of people they test is a skewed group.
"That means it's not within the general community, it's because there is suspicion or doubt over who might be the child's father," said Sue Lang of Genetic Technologies.
"So we're not talking general population, we're talking members of the population who already suspect that the parentage is in doubt."
Professor Gilding said in Australia, only 0.025 per cent of the population was tested for paternity each year and that public interest in it had grown since federal government frontbencher Tony Abbott was tested earlier this year.
"It's a much more exciting headline to say one in three kids are products of paternity fraud whereas me saying one in 100 is a pretty boring headline," he said.
© 2005 AAP"
Sunday, July 24, 2005
Sunday, July 17, 2005
Baby Bonus to MOTHERS ONLY Could be a Good Idea in United States too
Below is an interesting blurb from Australia about how they raised their birth rates (which had been declining for forty years) by introducing a $3,000 baby bonus.
Also this bonus will increase to $4,000 this month.
Italy has done the same thing with a baby bonus of about $5,000 annually which I think would have to be the minimum amount of the bonus in the US for it to have any impact.
Additionally the bonus would HAVE to be strictly limited to MOTHERS ONLY. Although I know that this is only common sense; it still needs to be enacted into law as I can see men trying to work this and reward themselves $5,000 annually for doing NOTHING. Just as right now men are attempting to take mother’s maternity leaves for themselves to get time off from work with pay.
As every mother knows, we use this period of maternity leave not only as a time to bond with baby but also as a time to recover from the 9 month and labor/delivery ORDEAL that mothers and children ALONE go through.
Additionally in the US, the bonus should be recurring every year for 18 years (almost like the earned income credit now, which would have to be phrased out). Also most importantly like child support, it should be tax free. This will encourage women, who might not have children until they could afford to NOT be rushed back to work or were fearful of a custody fight ensuing if they went into court to get child support, to go ahead and have children ANYWAY.
It could also be used in lieu of child support as it could be applied as a base support amount for MOST children. Of course, if custody transferred the allowance would have to follow the child. But it could substitute for child support in MOST cases except for the very highest income individuals, who, of course, would still have to make up the difference in that $5,000 and the child support their children would be entitled to in order to keep the child’s standard of living at the same level.
It could eventually morph into a real ‘change in welfare as we know it’ program as opposed to the one former President Clinton gave us which appeared to be just kick poor mothers and children off of welfare after a five year time limit. So as well as giving a base living allowance to the lowest income mothers and their children, it could at the same time, be just enough to encourage middle-income mothers to also have children. Since that amount added to an average working salary could make a substantial impact on the standard of living of most families in the United States.
"Baby bonus helps birth rate jump
05:56 AEST Sun Jun 12 2005
AAP
The federal government's $3000 baby bonus has helped to reverse the nation's declining birth rate, with new statistics revealing an increase for the first time in a decade.
Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show the number of babies per woman rose to 1.77 last year, breaking a forty year decline, News Limited reported.
The birth rate is the highest it has reached in seven years and is the first time it has increased significantly since 1961 when it peaked at 3.55, it was reported.
The Howard Government's $3000 baby bonus for every baby born in 2004 played a significant role in halting the nation's declining fertility rate, the Australian National University's head of demography, professor Peter McDonald said.
Prof McDonald predicted the fertility rate would rise to 1.8 in 2005 as the baby bonus starts having an effect.
The bonus will increase to $4000 from July 1 this year."
Also this bonus will increase to $4,000 this month.
Italy has done the same thing with a baby bonus of about $5,000 annually which I think would have to be the minimum amount of the bonus in the US for it to have any impact.
Additionally the bonus would HAVE to be strictly limited to MOTHERS ONLY. Although I know that this is only common sense; it still needs to be enacted into law as I can see men trying to work this and reward themselves $5,000 annually for doing NOTHING. Just as right now men are attempting to take mother’s maternity leaves for themselves to get time off from work with pay.
As every mother knows, we use this period of maternity leave not only as a time to bond with baby but also as a time to recover from the 9 month and labor/delivery ORDEAL that mothers and children ALONE go through.
Additionally in the US, the bonus should be recurring every year for 18 years (almost like the earned income credit now, which would have to be phrased out). Also most importantly like child support, it should be tax free. This will encourage women, who might not have children until they could afford to NOT be rushed back to work or were fearful of a custody fight ensuing if they went into court to get child support, to go ahead and have children ANYWAY.
It could also be used in lieu of child support as it could be applied as a base support amount for MOST children. Of course, if custody transferred the allowance would have to follow the child. But it could substitute for child support in MOST cases except for the very highest income individuals, who, of course, would still have to make up the difference in that $5,000 and the child support their children would be entitled to in order to keep the child’s standard of living at the same level.
It could eventually morph into a real ‘change in welfare as we know it’ program as opposed to the one former President Clinton gave us which appeared to be just kick poor mothers and children off of welfare after a five year time limit. So as well as giving a base living allowance to the lowest income mothers and their children, it could at the same time, be just enough to encourage middle-income mothers to also have children. Since that amount added to an average working salary could make a substantial impact on the standard of living of most families in the United States.
"Baby bonus helps birth rate jump
05:56 AEST Sun Jun 12 2005
AAP
The federal government's $3000 baby bonus has helped to reverse the nation's declining birth rate, with new statistics revealing an increase for the first time in a decade.
Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show the number of babies per woman rose to 1.77 last year, breaking a forty year decline, News Limited reported.
The birth rate is the highest it has reached in seven years and is the first time it has increased significantly since 1961 when it peaked at 3.55, it was reported.
The Howard Government's $3000 baby bonus for every baby born in 2004 played a significant role in halting the nation's declining fertility rate, the Australian National University's head of demography, professor Peter McDonald said.
Prof McDonald predicted the fertility rate would rise to 1.8 in 2005 as the baby bonus starts having an effect.
The bonus will increase to $4000 from July 1 this year."
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
One More Hoop For Women who Wish to be Mothers to Jump Through...
This is interesting.
England changed their laws vis-à-vis anonymous sperm donors back in April USING THE SUBTERFUGE of ‘best interest of the child’. Although their real purpose was the ongoing attempts by western civilization to make it MORE difficult for single women (both gay and straight) to become mothers without a male overseer.
This, of course, is all part of men trying to get themselves in charge of everything again. AND even though they have no interest in marriage or children these days until WELL past our fertility limits, God forbid women should do something that men have no interest in anyway...even though women having children with an anonymous donor meets ALL the traditionally historic criteria for most women to have children: which is basically fine, go have them as long as neither you or the kids trouble, bother, make any noise, smells or mess (or cost) men anything whatsoever. Then it's fine, have a dozen if you can meet this criteria... AND against ALL ODDS women find a way to do this anyway. YET now, of course, it's no longer legal. Since about FIVE people, maybe, have complained that they didn't like being donor children because they never got to know their father...so of course the hundreds of thousands of mothers who benefit from this procedure shouldn't be able to use it anymore.
Well that sounds fair doesn't it. I mean using that criteria every pregnant woman whose husband dies (like in war for instance) BEFORE the birth of their child should immediately abort it...since what value is this child's life if they will never know their father? Obviously not much if you believe the thinking behind this law, they would be better off not having ever existed.
In fact this change in law was NOT about children's best interest at all but about the never-ending struggle of men to control women again. That's the SOLE reason for this change. It is a continuation of the age-old method of holding a mother’s children as hostages for her ‘good’ behavior and of men trying to get back in the Captain's seat again, which they gave up a generation or so ago when they all decided to be like Hugh Hefner and have sex with no commitment. Clearly, anything that can restore them to that position, such as interfering with a single women becoming a mother without the requisite male overseer in charge, is a plus.
Thus, this law painted as phony concern for children...and by the way, we can expect it HERE soon as well, just to let you know...
Regarding the article itself, the fact that they are now forced to advertise for SOME SPERM DONORS shows me two things.
One, the goal they wished to obtain has already been met; and, two, the right hand there must not know what the left hand is doing.
Since why advertise when you’ve successfully completed the mission????
Sigh...
Anyway story below:
"NEWS.telegraph
Every sperm donor recruited costs public $6,250 say critics
By Charlotte McDonald-Gibson
(Filed 03/07/2005)
Every sperm donor recruited by a new awareness campaign costs the Government £6,250, according to critics who say that the scheme has been wasteful.
Since the Government changed the law in April to allow children of sperm donation a right to information on their natural parents, ministers have spent £300,000 on a drive to counteract a drop in donor numbers. Sperm donors receive, by law, a maximum of £15 for their efforts.
“It has been like emptying petrol on the ground, not in the tank," said a spokesman at a fertility clinic in London. "The Department of Health, having decided to change the law against the advice of nearly all the practitioners in the industry, now need a commitment to continuous education on the need for donors."
From January to May, the campaign resulted in 486 calls to the donor information line, of which 237 have been potential sperm donors and the rest potential egg donors
Clinics have seen a steady decline in donor numbers since questions about anonymity were raised in the mid-1990s. The number of men donating sperm fell from 554 between 1991 and 1992 to 222 between 2002 and 2003.
People now can wait years for a suitable donor, prompting some to turn to unregulated websites or to go abroad.
The Department of Health pointed to the 486 calls as an indication of the campaign's success. But many factors prevent callers from donating. Some prove to be cranks, others too old, some have an unsuitable history, and others never call back. Those that make it to the clinic face tests to see whether their sperm is sufficiently fertile to withstand freezing.
Linda Sheahan, a laboratory manager at the London-based Louis Hughes fertility clinic, said that the money would be better spent on television and radio advertisements. "We got 237 responses over five months - that is not very successful," she said.
A Department of Health spokesman said that although calls to the helpline were one indicator of the campaign's success, media coverage also had to be considered, as did donors who went directly to the clinics.
"The campaign funds cannot be broken down into a cost per donor," he said. "It is about raising awareness."
Yeah, right...
Like after you explain to a man he can NO longer be anonymous when he donates sperm and the MAXIMUM AMOUNT he can get paid is about $15 lb, THEN he's going to want to donate sperm for some woman he doesn't even KNOW to have a child. With the spectre of 'child support' hanging over his head, since he's no longer anonymous.
Please.....
I mean heck a woman can barely convince a guy to do that when you're in a relationship with him FOR YEARS; sometimes even when you're MARRIED to them, men don't want children since they claim they are not ready yet...
Like David Letterman (51 years old) before his girlfriend finally just went ahead and got pregnant. She was in her late 30s - early 40s, they were together for years, YET David was still waiting for a good time to get married and have kids...and guess what, they have a kid alright but STILL aren't married...
David's probably not ready yet...
Of course, (women who generally wish to be mothers) could have our eggs hard boiled or be dead of old age by the time the men in our lives are ready to be parents.
AND I can guarantee you that MOST of those single women looking for anonymous donors are women WELL into their 30s who had a relationship with a man for YEARS, just hanging around, probably living with the guy at one time, waiting and waiting and then waiting some more for him to be READY for marriage and children.
Probably the women just finally gave up and it was too LATE to invest more time in someone else, so she just decided to take the anonymous donor route. Actually even the man could have instigated the breakup, as frequently women invest YEARS in these characters before they up and leave you in the middle of the night to take up with someone else...
These are the women Sylvia Hewlett documented in "Creating a Life: Professional Women and the Quest for Children. "
The tragedy of MOST of those women is that they never even planned to NOT be mothers...it just happened and I bet MOST of it just happened waiting for some jerkoff to commit...
Well England just ensured that a LOT more of these women who would probably make perfectly fine and loving mothers, even being single, will NOW have another hoop to jump through...and many will probably not even bother now as it's not in the psychological makeup of most women to go running all around the place advertising that they are looking for an anonymous sperm donor.
I mean after all it probably takes a lot of courage for women to even call a local clinic and see what is possible, since a single woman even USING a service like that puts herself under a stigma. I mean let's face it, I read somewhere that little girls start planning their weddings when they are like 7 years old. Can you imagine if that's true, what a woman goes through to have to even CALL a clinic admitting to even NEEDING a service like an anonymous sperm donor???
Crikey...
Like what's wrong with her, she couldn't get a husband and have a kid the way everyone else does????Like why not put a big sign on herself "LOSER" and make up a smaller one for her kid as well..."BABY OF LOSER"...
Thus ANY obstacles put in the way of a single women looking to have a child via this route, ANY obstacles, probably means it won't happen...She'll just say thanks and head out the back door and the clinic will never hear from her again.
So I see another dip in England's population directly related to this new law...
Although to be honest, this was a selfish law passed to benefit men and disadvantage women (although it was postulated as being for the well-being of children, I don't believe it for a minute); and frankly, men this selfish probably should fall into extinction anyway as we have more then our share of selfish genes running amok in western civilization today...
England changed their laws vis-à-vis anonymous sperm donors back in April USING THE SUBTERFUGE of ‘best interest of the child’. Although their real purpose was the ongoing attempts by western civilization to make it MORE difficult for single women (both gay and straight) to become mothers without a male overseer.
This, of course, is all part of men trying to get themselves in charge of everything again. AND even though they have no interest in marriage or children these days until WELL past our fertility limits, God forbid women should do something that men have no interest in anyway...even though women having children with an anonymous donor meets ALL the traditionally historic criteria for most women to have children: which is basically fine, go have them as long as neither you or the kids trouble, bother, make any noise, smells or mess (or cost) men anything whatsoever. Then it's fine, have a dozen if you can meet this criteria... AND against ALL ODDS women find a way to do this anyway. YET now, of course, it's no longer legal. Since about FIVE people, maybe, have complained that they didn't like being donor children because they never got to know their father...so of course the hundreds of thousands of mothers who benefit from this procedure shouldn't be able to use it anymore.
Well that sounds fair doesn't it. I mean using that criteria every pregnant woman whose husband dies (like in war for instance) BEFORE the birth of their child should immediately abort it...since what value is this child's life if they will never know their father? Obviously not much if you believe the thinking behind this law, they would be better off not having ever existed.
In fact this change in law was NOT about children's best interest at all but about the never-ending struggle of men to control women again. That's the SOLE reason for this change. It is a continuation of the age-old method of holding a mother’s children as hostages for her ‘good’ behavior and of men trying to get back in the Captain's seat again, which they gave up a generation or so ago when they all decided to be like Hugh Hefner and have sex with no commitment. Clearly, anything that can restore them to that position, such as interfering with a single women becoming a mother without the requisite male overseer in charge, is a plus.
Thus, this law painted as phony concern for children...and by the way, we can expect it HERE soon as well, just to let you know...
Regarding the article itself, the fact that they are now forced to advertise for SOME SPERM DONORS shows me two things.
One, the goal they wished to obtain has already been met; and, two, the right hand there must not know what the left hand is doing.
Since why advertise when you’ve successfully completed the mission????
Sigh...
Anyway story below:
"NEWS.telegraph
Every sperm donor recruited costs public $6,250 say critics
By Charlotte McDonald-Gibson
(Filed 03/07/2005)
Every sperm donor recruited by a new awareness campaign costs the Government £6,250, according to critics who say that the scheme has been wasteful.
Since the Government changed the law in April to allow children of sperm donation a right to information on their natural parents, ministers have spent £300,000 on a drive to counteract a drop in donor numbers. Sperm donors receive, by law, a maximum of £15 for their efforts.
“It has been like emptying petrol on the ground, not in the tank," said a spokesman at a fertility clinic in London. "The Department of Health, having decided to change the law against the advice of nearly all the practitioners in the industry, now need a commitment to continuous education on the need for donors."
From January to May, the campaign resulted in 486 calls to the donor information line, of which 237 have been potential sperm donors and the rest potential egg donors
Clinics have seen a steady decline in donor numbers since questions about anonymity were raised in the mid-1990s. The number of men donating sperm fell from 554 between 1991 and 1992 to 222 between 2002 and 2003.
People now can wait years for a suitable donor, prompting some to turn to unregulated websites or to go abroad.
The Department of Health pointed to the 486 calls as an indication of the campaign's success. But many factors prevent callers from donating. Some prove to be cranks, others too old, some have an unsuitable history, and others never call back. Those that make it to the clinic face tests to see whether their sperm is sufficiently fertile to withstand freezing.
Linda Sheahan, a laboratory manager at the London-based Louis Hughes fertility clinic, said that the money would be better spent on television and radio advertisements. "We got 237 responses over five months - that is not very successful," she said.
A Department of Health spokesman said that although calls to the helpline were one indicator of the campaign's success, media coverage also had to be considered, as did donors who went directly to the clinics.
"The campaign funds cannot be broken down into a cost per donor," he said. "It is about raising awareness."
Yeah, right...
Like after you explain to a man he can NO longer be anonymous when he donates sperm and the MAXIMUM AMOUNT he can get paid is about $15 lb, THEN he's going to want to donate sperm for some woman he doesn't even KNOW to have a child. With the spectre of 'child support' hanging over his head, since he's no longer anonymous.
Please.....
I mean heck a woman can barely convince a guy to do that when you're in a relationship with him FOR YEARS; sometimes even when you're MARRIED to them, men don't want children since they claim they are not ready yet...
Like David Letterman (51 years old) before his girlfriend finally just went ahead and got pregnant. She was in her late 30s - early 40s, they were together for years, YET David was still waiting for a good time to get married and have kids...and guess what, they have a kid alright but STILL aren't married...
David's probably not ready yet...
Of course, (women who generally wish to be mothers) could have our eggs hard boiled or be dead of old age by the time the men in our lives are ready to be parents.
AND I can guarantee you that MOST of those single women looking for anonymous donors are women WELL into their 30s who had a relationship with a man for YEARS, just hanging around, probably living with the guy at one time, waiting and waiting and then waiting some more for him to be READY for marriage and children.
Probably the women just finally gave up and it was too LATE to invest more time in someone else, so she just decided to take the anonymous donor route. Actually even the man could have instigated the breakup, as frequently women invest YEARS in these characters before they up and leave you in the middle of the night to take up with someone else...
These are the women Sylvia Hewlett documented in "Creating a Life: Professional Women and the Quest for Children. "
The tragedy of MOST of those women is that they never even planned to NOT be mothers...it just happened and I bet MOST of it just happened waiting for some jerkoff to commit...
Well England just ensured that a LOT more of these women who would probably make perfectly fine and loving mothers, even being single, will NOW have another hoop to jump through...and many will probably not even bother now as it's not in the psychological makeup of most women to go running all around the place advertising that they are looking for an anonymous sperm donor.
I mean after all it probably takes a lot of courage for women to even call a local clinic and see what is possible, since a single woman even USING a service like that puts herself under a stigma. I mean let's face it, I read somewhere that little girls start planning their weddings when they are like 7 years old. Can you imagine if that's true, what a woman goes through to have to even CALL a clinic admitting to even NEEDING a service like an anonymous sperm donor???
Crikey...
Like what's wrong with her, she couldn't get a husband and have a kid the way everyone else does????Like why not put a big sign on herself "LOSER" and make up a smaller one for her kid as well..."BABY OF LOSER"...
Thus ANY obstacles put in the way of a single women looking to have a child via this route, ANY obstacles, probably means it won't happen...She'll just say thanks and head out the back door and the clinic will never hear from her again.
So I see another dip in England's population directly related to this new law...
Although to be honest, this was a selfish law passed to benefit men and disadvantage women (although it was postulated as being for the well-being of children, I don't believe it for a minute); and frankly, men this selfish probably should fall into extinction anyway as we have more then our share of selfish genes running amok in western civilization today...
Sunday, July 03, 2005
Another Evolutionary Step in Child Support Reform which Should Benefit Mothers and Children
"Is Staying Home with Children "Shirking Work" For Child Support Purposes?
The Wisconsin Supreme Court Says No
By JOANNA GROSSMAN
lawjlg@hofstra.edu
Tuesday, Jun. 14, 2005
Some Background on Child Support Law
Once, only fathers were legally required to pay child support. Now, under the law, all parents have a legal duty to support their children.
In theory, child support has always been available.
BUT HISTORICALLY, IT WAS NOT ROUTINELY AWARDED UNTIL AT LEAST THE 1970's..."
I myself highlighted the above fact as I think it is important to understand the evolutionary history of our modern day ‘custody wars’ especially since this particular series of wars appears to dovetail precisely with the federal government’s standardization and enforcement of child support guidelines.
Of course, I know many will paint this as probably being a coincidence.
Nevertheless, it would seem that once gaining custody of a child automatically equaled controlling access to ALL the financial assets of the family, suddenly everybody and his grandmother decided they needed to fight for custody...
…whereas previously, when MOST children were worth little or nothing, ONLY their MOTHERS appeared very interested in them.
Anyway…
Then, through a series of federal laws, Congress required states to adopt rules that would result in a greater number of child support awards, in greater amounts. (It did not, however, mandate what the rules ought to be.)
Pursuant to a 1988 federal law, every state today maintains child support guidelines that dictate exactly how much a non-custodial parent should be obligated to pay.
The guidelines in each state are derived from a set formula, which is supposed to produce an appropriate amount of support to meet children's needs. These formulas, regardless of their technical variations, are all based on the basic assumption that children should benefit from roughly the same percentage of parental income after divorce as they did in the intact household. States tend to follow one of three basic formulas:
First, some states, such as Wisconsin, simply require noncustodial parents to pay a flat percentage of their income to the custodial parents based on the number of children being supported.
Second, a majority of states use the "income-shares" model. In this model, total support is calculated based on a percentage of combined parental income. Then, each parent's portion is calculated based on his or her relative earnings.
Third, a handful of states use a model that first carves out necessary expenses for parental support, and then assigns a percentage of the remaining income for child support.
One of Congress' goals in requiring states to adopt guidelines was to decrease judicial discretion in awarding child support and, thereby, to increase consistency among awards. As a result, the amount of support called for by any set of guidelines is "presumptively" appropriate - which means that a judge can only deviate from that amount (up or down) in certain, limited circumstances.
Removing judicial discretion vis-à-vis child support, by the way, HAD to be done. Since just as happens NOW when mothers enter court to litigate custody, Judges THEN routinely discriminated against mothers regarding child support. MOST Judges, believe it or not, when they had discretion in the past chose to award mothers absolutely NOTHING in the way of child support.
Of course when children were worth nothing, everyone was very content with leaving them with their mothers and we never heard of custody wars.
Today, of course, it’s a different story and we are routinely bombarded with stories of the many casualties of these custody wars: children victims of parental abductions (350,000 annually, the FBI has a website now strictly devoted to this new crime) pregnant mothers being murdered BEFORE the birth of their infants by boyfriends or husbands in some cases (such as the case with Rae Carruth, Tjane Marshall, Scott Petersen) even young children themselves being murdered to avoid child support and many, many mothers losing custody of their children to never see them again ie., Jerica Rhodes, Jessica Lundsford and other mothers too numerous to list here.
Thus, it's obvious that the same thing Congress did with child support must also happen regarding custody. Removing judicial discretion and instituting mandatory custody guidelines at the federal level is probably on the horizon for the US, as well.
Since clearly the most educated and pampered elite in history ‘the legal profession’ cannot be trusted to make fair decisions where women and children are concerned.
Sad really…
Today we see many looking at ways to further standardize child support guidelines in an attempt to stop the ruthless custody wars that ensue when selfish people persist, with no regard for the well-being of their offspring, in continuing to use children as humans shields to protect financial assets.
Of course, it’s probably only a half measure until the federal custody mandatory guidelines, which I’ve mentioned above, are instituted.
Anyway, we see the continuing evolution of rulings where child support is based upon financial disparities in household income no matter which parent has custody, such as what happened last May in Pennsylvania with the Colonna vs. Colonna ruling, where a custodial father was ordered to pay child support to a non-custodial mother due to disparities in household income.
New York is currently investigating passing a law to achieve a similar outcome and I think it would be a GOOD thing if it happened. Actually I think the federal government should make this ruling part of their mandatory guidelines as a strategy to stop people fighting for custody in order to avoid paying child support…
This way you’re paying it whether or NOT you are custodial since you’re paying it based upon disparities in household income…
See below:
”There are important cases to review from the past year. Probably the most important is the Supreme Court decision Colonna v. Colonna, which describes cases in which the dependent spouse may get child support even though the dependent spouse is the partial custodian.
CUSTODIAL PARENT AS SUPPORT OBLIGOR
Colonna v. Colonna, 855 A.2d 648, (Pa. 2004). A lengthy decision issued from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on April 29, 2004. In an unusual case in which Mother had primary custody in the summer only, and was the income-dependent spouse, Mother sought support from Father, the custodial parent. The court found that since this was a case of significantly disparate income, equity and fairness required the income-superior parent should pay child support to the partial custodian. The case arose under Melzer (combined monthly net income over $15,000), but the decision said it should apply with guideline cases as well. The Supreme Court urged trial courts to use the deviation provisions in the Rules to create economic justice.”
Some of this information courtesy of http://www.highswartz.com/bios2a.asp?ID=28
Generally a law like this will favor more mothers then fathers (as women generally still make less income then men) however, there is ONE category of mothers that could be negatively impacted. That is mothers who have children with men who are either drug/alcohol dependent or in jail. For if these men decide they wish to be involved with their children, I could easily see a court deciding that a child’s custodial mother needs to pay these non-custodial fathers a few hundred dollars monthly in child support, as per the intent behind the Colonna vs Colonna ruling.
Thus, we see once again where women in their role as mothers MUST be particularly careful when they affiliate themselves with dangerous men and decide to have children with them.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court Says No
By JOANNA GROSSMAN
lawjlg@hofstra.edu
Tuesday, Jun. 14, 2005
Some Background on Child Support Law
Once, only fathers were legally required to pay child support. Now, under the law, all parents have a legal duty to support their children.
In theory, child support has always been available.
BUT HISTORICALLY, IT WAS NOT ROUTINELY AWARDED UNTIL AT LEAST THE 1970's..."
I myself highlighted the above fact as I think it is important to understand the evolutionary history of our modern day ‘custody wars’ especially since this particular series of wars appears to dovetail precisely with the federal government’s standardization and enforcement of child support guidelines.
Of course, I know many will paint this as probably being a coincidence.
Nevertheless, it would seem that once gaining custody of a child automatically equaled controlling access to ALL the financial assets of the family, suddenly everybody and his grandmother decided they needed to fight for custody...
…whereas previously, when MOST children were worth little or nothing, ONLY their MOTHERS appeared very interested in them.
Anyway…
Then, through a series of federal laws, Congress required states to adopt rules that would result in a greater number of child support awards, in greater amounts. (It did not, however, mandate what the rules ought to be.)
Pursuant to a 1988 federal law, every state today maintains child support guidelines that dictate exactly how much a non-custodial parent should be obligated to pay.
The guidelines in each state are derived from a set formula, which is supposed to produce an appropriate amount of support to meet children's needs. These formulas, regardless of their technical variations, are all based on the basic assumption that children should benefit from roughly the same percentage of parental income after divorce as they did in the intact household. States tend to follow one of three basic formulas:
First, some states, such as Wisconsin, simply require noncustodial parents to pay a flat percentage of their income to the custodial parents based on the number of children being supported.
Second, a majority of states use the "income-shares" model. In this model, total support is calculated based on a percentage of combined parental income. Then, each parent's portion is calculated based on his or her relative earnings.
Third, a handful of states use a model that first carves out necessary expenses for parental support, and then assigns a percentage of the remaining income for child support.
One of Congress' goals in requiring states to adopt guidelines was to decrease judicial discretion in awarding child support and, thereby, to increase consistency among awards. As a result, the amount of support called for by any set of guidelines is "presumptively" appropriate - which means that a judge can only deviate from that amount (up or down) in certain, limited circumstances.
Removing judicial discretion vis-à-vis child support, by the way, HAD to be done. Since just as happens NOW when mothers enter court to litigate custody, Judges THEN routinely discriminated against mothers regarding child support. MOST Judges, believe it or not, when they had discretion in the past chose to award mothers absolutely NOTHING in the way of child support.
Of course when children were worth nothing, everyone was very content with leaving them with their mothers and we never heard of custody wars.
Today, of course, it’s a different story and we are routinely bombarded with stories of the many casualties of these custody wars: children victims of parental abductions (350,000 annually, the FBI has a website now strictly devoted to this new crime) pregnant mothers being murdered BEFORE the birth of their infants by boyfriends or husbands in some cases (such as the case with Rae Carruth, Tjane Marshall, Scott Petersen) even young children themselves being murdered to avoid child support and many, many mothers losing custody of their children to never see them again ie., Jerica Rhodes, Jessica Lundsford and other mothers too numerous to list here.
Thus, it's obvious that the same thing Congress did with child support must also happen regarding custody. Removing judicial discretion and instituting mandatory custody guidelines at the federal level is probably on the horizon for the US, as well.
Since clearly the most educated and pampered elite in history ‘the legal profession’ cannot be trusted to make fair decisions where women and children are concerned.
Sad really…
Today we see many looking at ways to further standardize child support guidelines in an attempt to stop the ruthless custody wars that ensue when selfish people persist, with no regard for the well-being of their offspring, in continuing to use children as humans shields to protect financial assets.
Of course, it’s probably only a half measure until the federal custody mandatory guidelines, which I’ve mentioned above, are instituted.
Anyway, we see the continuing evolution of rulings where child support is based upon financial disparities in household income no matter which parent has custody, such as what happened last May in Pennsylvania with the Colonna vs. Colonna ruling, where a custodial father was ordered to pay child support to a non-custodial mother due to disparities in household income.
New York is currently investigating passing a law to achieve a similar outcome and I think it would be a GOOD thing if it happened. Actually I think the federal government should make this ruling part of their mandatory guidelines as a strategy to stop people fighting for custody in order to avoid paying child support…
This way you’re paying it whether or NOT you are custodial since you’re paying it based upon disparities in household income…
See below:
”There are important cases to review from the past year. Probably the most important is the Supreme Court decision Colonna v. Colonna, which describes cases in which the dependent spouse may get child support even though the dependent spouse is the partial custodian.
CUSTODIAL PARENT AS SUPPORT OBLIGOR
Colonna v. Colonna, 855 A.2d 648, (Pa. 2004). A lengthy decision issued from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on April 29, 2004. In an unusual case in which Mother had primary custody in the summer only, and was the income-dependent spouse, Mother sought support from Father, the custodial parent. The court found that since this was a case of significantly disparate income, equity and fairness required the income-superior parent should pay child support to the partial custodian. The case arose under Melzer (combined monthly net income over $15,000), but the decision said it should apply with guideline cases as well. The Supreme Court urged trial courts to use the deviation provisions in the Rules to create economic justice.”
Some of this information courtesy of http://www.highswartz.com/bios2a.asp?ID=28
Generally a law like this will favor more mothers then fathers (as women generally still make less income then men) however, there is ONE category of mothers that could be negatively impacted. That is mothers who have children with men who are either drug/alcohol dependent or in jail. For if these men decide they wish to be involved with their children, I could easily see a court deciding that a child’s custodial mother needs to pay these non-custodial fathers a few hundred dollars monthly in child support, as per the intent behind the Colonna vs Colonna ruling.
Thus, we see once again where women in their role as mothers MUST be particularly careful when they affiliate themselves with dangerous men and decide to have children with them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)