Saturday, August 19, 2006

Many Profitteering Off Custody of Children

Well as we can see from the two articles below the people that profit off of the custody of children are many and diverse.

As it’s not just family court attorneys, GALS and Evaluators who are making money from this whole custody business, nor is it the custodial parent necessarily, although all stand to lose something depending upon how this is ultimately resolved. But now we see even our state and local government itself stands to lose the windfall it has been getting from matching federal funds received for all child support collected.

Additionally it also appears that this could be a class issue of sorts.

As middle and upper class non-custodial parents appear to have been shouldering some hidden tax, which helps the state bring in federal dollars for lower income families. As I’m sure that the 71 million or so matching TANF dollars mentioned that the states receives from the federal government is NOT wholly based on matching child support collected from ONLY lower income families.

In other words as a friend of mine used to say: the plot sickens.

Thus as I’ve been saying right along, we must really address the financial issues surrounding custody of children. As the financial issues ARE the MAIN EVENT. Solve the financial issues and ALL THE REST will take care of itself.

I guarantee you that MOST of these custody fights will end TOMORROW when there is no financial incentive to have custody. Parents will go right back to doing what they did before which was settle it amongst themselves.

Actually I never even HEARD of a custody fight before the last 15 years or so (except in the movies or on TV) and I lived through the 70s where the divorce rate was even HIGHER then today. AND practically every divorce involved kids… Yet with no guarantee for ordinary parents of being forced to pay guideline child support (if they became non-custodial) or face getting tossed in jail if you couldn’t afford to pay it, no one bothered fighting over custody...

Custody simply went by default to the more interested parent (and in spite of much propaganda to the contrary that was generally mother). As it appears when children are not worth any money to anyone, the only one interested in them is generally their mothers (again in spite of much propaganda to the contrary)...

Additionally, we need to address MORE then just the child support issue. We must address ALL the tax and other public benefits that have made custody of children something for people to fight over. From subsidized housing, free medical care, extra food allowances to the infamous ‘anchor babies’ who give the custodial parent citizenship privileges, ALL of this must be addressed and either modified or come to an end.

Everything that has made children a prize to be fought for: support, benefits and other monetary/benefit advantages linked to custody must be rescinded or at least modified. The custody of a child must not continue to be seen as the equivalent of winning the Irish sweepstakes; but must return to its roots. Where custody naturally reverted to the one who cared the most about the child, not the ones who stood to make the most income from it.

Unfortunately there will be no simply answer here. Since the problem is so complicated, so must be the solution.

GrandFolksHerald.com

VIEWPOINT:


http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/opinion/15291702.htm

Measure Complies with Federal Law
By Rob Port


MINOT - Recently, North Dakota Human Services Director Carol Olson wrote a column about the North Dakota Shared Parenting Initiative, a measure which got about 17,000 petition signatures and likely will be on the ballot in November.

Olson states that should the initiative become law, it would cause North Dakota to lose out on more than $70 million in federal money for human services programs in the state. To back up her claim, she quotes a letter from the federal regional director of the Department of Health and Human Services, Thomas Sullivan.

Unfortunately, neither Olson nor Sullivan are interpreting this situation correctly.

The standards for state child support guidelines are found in federal code Title 45, Volume 2, Section 302.56. All they require of state child support guidelines is that a) the state have a formula for determining the amount of child support, and b) that the formula take into account all of an obliged parent's income.

That's it. Federal law does not prohibit additional calculations (such as the actual cost of raising a child) from being used to determine the amount of child support to be paid, nor does the initiative prohibit the amount of income to be used in the calculations.

In short, the initiative is explicitly in compliance with federal standards.

So why is Olson saying that the initiative isn't in compliance? It helps if we follow the money.

The federal funding that the Child Support Enforcement division of the North Dakota Department of Human Services gets is based on the number of dollars that agency collects in child support. The more child support money the division collects, the more federal funding it receives.

The initiative likely would reduce the amount of child support collected in North Dakota by preventing support payments from exceeding the cost of raising the child. Currently, many parents pay hundreds of dollars a month more than they need to because current child support guidelines are based only on income, not the needs of the children.

The bureaucrats down at the child support offices like that because it means more federal dollars for them.

This is the key at the state level, rather than any concern about being out of compliance with federal regulations.

What we need to ask ourselves is this: What's more important: A family law system that's equitable to both parents and does not require child support payments in excess of what is needed? Or, keeping the amount of federal funds the child support agency receives high?

I pick the first one, especially in light of a recent announcement that North Dakota has a half-billion dollar budget surplus.

There is no reason to be sacrificing equality for the sake of some federal dollars right now.


http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/opinion/15291687.htm

VIEWPOINT : State wants to protect revenue stream
By Don Mathis


SHERMAN, Texas - The forces that are lining up against North Dakota's Shared Parenting Initiative have two things in common: lack of logic and lust for lucre.

For example, Herald columnist Lloyd Omdahl writes, "Dr. Diane Lye said that the single most important determinant of a child's well-being after divorce is living in a household with adequate income" . Does this mean if Dad makes more money than Mom, he should have custody?

How about this one: "Father contact in low-conflict families can be beneficial, but in high-conflict families, it can be harmful." I guess if the ex-wife wants conflict, the ex-husband should just drop out of his kid's life.

In fact, Omdahl and Carol Olson, executive director of the North Dakota Department of Human Services and the author of "Family-law measures would lead to cutoff of federal funds" , both are singing the same tune. They are afraid this initiated measure would jeopardize millions in federal Temporary Aid for Needy Families funds for North Dakota.

The refrain of their song is Omdahl's: "Many custodial parents have had to turn to the government and its Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program for help."

Well, how many: Fifty percent? Seventy percent?

No, 8 percent. According to Olson, the state's child support enforcement program "serves about 60,000 children monthly, and the TANF program ... each month helps financially support about 5,000 qualifying low-income children who live with single parents or other relatives."

While 8 percent qualifies as "many" if you happen to be in that category, there is a much bigger welfare recipient that all of us should know about.

The federal government gives millions of taxpayer dollars to each state so they may keep track of child support. North Dakota's share is $71 million.


How far would those millions go if they went directly to those 5,000 qualifying low-income children?

The North Dakota Department of Human Services is trying to use children to justify its budget. We have child labor laws to prevent exploitation of our children. DHS should be prevented from using kids for cash as well.

8 comments:

bloggernoggin said...

Listen if you cannot be nice do not respond to my posts at all, you insulting old hag!!!

NYMOM said...

I almost wasn't going to allow this comment to post...

YET I thought it was a good object lesson to put it up there front and center to demonstrate the absolute nerve of you.

You post a comment on MY BLOG and then tell me if I "cannot be nice do not respond to my posts at all, you insulting old hag!!!"

Guess what jerk...this is MY BLOG and I am the one calling the shots.

Not you...

Sadly on other sites you have the protection of the owners, but on this one, guess what: YOU HAVE NONE...you are going to be treated just like you deserve which is as a totally worthless piece of garbage who took a five year old child away from her mother JUST to AVOID PAYING CHILD SUPPORT.

Okay.

You are WORTHLESS as far as I'm concerned.

So beat it and don't comment here anymore. As you are entitled to nothing here: no consideration, no courtesy, no concern or respect...

yohan said...

To be a man+father and to get custody-rights for his 5 yo child, who is taken away from the mother and transferred to the father's home - this is a highly unusual case within the US.
To avoid paying child support for sure is not enough reasonable argument to win this claim in court. I suppose, something was seriously wrong with the mother.
Yohan

BloggerNoggin said...

lol.....nymom that is'nt me....
I don't insult and you should already know that. I just came here to do some reading and compliment you on this post. I have a file a friend sent me from the SSA and that's where the incentives come from that is given to the states. Yes, your SS is paying them incentives!

BN

NYMOM said...

Well I believe it was you...

Since although you generally don't curse and carry on, every once in a while your mask slips and you do.

I saw this tendency in you to act out even on other blogs.

But I go back to what I've said many times before about all of you MRAs and yes, I include you amongst them...you are all nuts, damaged goods in one way or another (and I don't just mean in your relationships with women) but in all of your life relationships...

So this sort of carrying on is very predictable.

NYMOM said...

Yohan, first of all millions of American men have custody of their children...not to mention the millions of paternal grandparents, (acting as surrogates for men so 'poor little sonny' won't have to pay so much child support)...

So this is NOT true that it's an unusual situation in the US for a father to get custody of a 5 year old.

Actually West Virgina did a survey, since it got tired of listening to all of these men whining about how biased the courts were against fathers. AND guess what: it turned out that for children over 5 in litigated cases more fathers won then mothers...and West Virgina is the LAST STATE that overthrew the presumption of the primary caretaker getting custody...it just threw it out a few years ago. So Judges supposed should have been more likely to favor mothers in custody rulings for children of any age, as most worked in an atmosphere that presumed custody for the primary caretaker (which is still generally mothers)...

You are very wrong in your assumptions about who is favored in custody rulings...even feminists in positions of power in court favor fathers today. As it's considered progressive and trendy to give fathers custody.

You keep acting like MRAs and feminists are on opposite sides in this and yet I have seen it's just the opposite. Many of your positions are exactly the same.
Even this bloggernoggin is very favored on feminists blogs...women who claim to be advocates for other women support this character...even though he freely acknowledges that he took custody of a 5 year old from her mother to get out of paying child support.

BTW, of course, nobody is stupid enough to charge into the courtroom telling everyone they only want custody to get out of paying child support. They clearly make up some other story as to why they want custody. AND I might add: they could even BELIEVE the other story to a certain extent, as people are notorious in justifying even their worse behavior...

Anonymous said...

Re the profit motive in all this. NYS is now allowing judges to MANDATE "parenting classes" whenever they deem it fit. Apparently, the courts were mad that when judges made "referrals," not all parents hopped to it. Funny, I always figured a "referral" was voluntary (Dr. Z, your dentist, suggests your teen see Dr. N, an orthodontist. That's a referral, as far as I understand. You don't go to jail or get sanctioned it anyway because you decide that Dr. D. is a better orthodontist.)

But apparently the NYS courts don't see it that way. When we mean referral, we mean ORDER.

Lots of money to be made her by second-rate psychologists. A real government "make work" scheme.

silverside

NYMOM said...

Yes.

These parenting classes are nothing but another boondoogle for people to generate profit off of kids.

Actually most of the men I know who fight in court for custody have taken these classes. So I think they also function to incite men to fight for custody by 'juicing' them up with a lot of phony statistics about mothers.

I think they even go into prisons to give ex-cons tips on how to get custody when they get released...Probably condemning some poor kid to winding up in the custody of another jackoff like that Christopher Rhodes. I bet he took parenting classes just before or after he got custody of that poor kid.

Unfortunately I also think a lot of women who are gender neutralized feminists are involved with these classes as well, teaching them for money...Even though they ultimately benefit men involved in custody switching schemes. Just as gender neutralized feminists are up to their necks in the other court affiliated professions swirling around the family courts, such as Evaluators and social workers. Even GALS now...as GALS USED to be attorneys appointed to representive a child's legal interest. NOW however I'm hearing of more and more of them being social workers.

Many women major in the soft sciences which are the major beneficiaries of these sorts of jobs. As I seriously doubt if someone majoring in chemistry or nuclear physics is going to look to become a custody Evaluator or teach parenting classes.

I mean there are a few Dean Tongs out there, but for the most part you are looking at women in these fields...and like I said many of them are gender neutralized feminists as well...

I guess to paraphrase Hillary Clinton, "It takes a village to raise a child". However she forgot to add: "It takes a child to support a village"...as many many of these gender neutralized 'villagers' are making money off this whole custody business.

It's nothing but a racket...the whole thing. and one more special interest group that will resist any changes in how custody is decided in this nation...

It almost seems hopeless.