The Child Support needs to be deducted by percentages ( % ) which was the original intent of the c/s order under federal mandate nationwide.
To take the Child Support by percentages as our taxes are collected as in we only pay taxes strictly according to what one actually makes in salary or income and so the c/s needs to be the same as based on actual income.
As it is now the very poor and low income parents are ordered to pay high amounts which are not based on income, as like charging c/s arrears for a parent who is unemployed or disabled or even in jail so that the c/s is based on nothing instead of a percentage.
Consider if taxes were based on a minimum of $500 per month in taxes whether a citizen works or not or whether they have any income or not, because then we would be demanding tax from the under-employed and from homeless people as like the Child Support system does and puts dead-broke parents into jails just for being dirt poor.
People pay taxes based on what a person actually earns as income, and that is the solution for Child Support, so if the parent hits the mega-lottery for $100m then the c/s would take its same percentage, and if the parent earns nothing then the c/s would be nothing.
In fact children have had poor parents all through humanity and ordering dirt poor parents to pay when they have nothing is a huge injustice.
Therefore I have a solution which will make the Child Support as effective and more fair.
* * *
Based on the Code of Federal Regulations, the stated regulation is given as follows;
The guidelines established under paragraph (a) of this section must at a minimum: (1) Take into consideration all earnings and income of the noncustodial parent; (2) Be based on specific description and numeric criteria and result in a computation of the support obligation; and (3) Provide for the child(ren)’s health care needs, through health insurance coverage or other means.
45 C.F.R. section 302.56(C) Link it HERE.
The regulation above is stating for a “specific description and numeric criteria” which is referring to the parent’s income and not the support amount as the State Courts are ordering and the regulation goes on saying that THEN then it “results in a computation of the support obligation” so it means specific numbers (parent’s actual income) then the resulting percentage computation. The States Child Support Enforcement Administrations have it backwards and incorrect. Specifically our own Maryland law is based on an incorrect reading of the Federal regulation.
The State of Maryland circumvents this guideline by ordering specific numbers instead of percentages based on the following:MD Annotated Code, Family Law, 12-201 through 12-204 linked HERE, based on the Court finding as follows:
“The adoption of the child support guidelines was intended to restrict the equitable discretion of the trial court and produce an award of support that is grounded in specific description and numeric criteria. Reuter v. Reuter, 102Md. App. 212,649 A.2d 24 (1994).” [ Prior ruling from: Voishan v. Palma, 327 Md. 318, 322, 609 A.2d 319 (1992). ]
The State orders fixed numbers instead of being based on fixed numbers, and as such it inflicts a cruel and tyrannical collection and injustice against American parents.
In an effort to make the point more clear the following is given as example:
If the separated parent’s salary base (disposable income) is $300. per week and the child support garnishment is $75. (based as 25% of the fixed amount of $300.) then when the parent misses half of a work week (being sick or accident, or whatever reason) then the parent’s disposable income would be $150. and so the garnishment would be 25% which is $37.50 based on the above mentioned 45 C.F.R. section 302.56(C) (2), because the parent’s specific number income is to result in the computation of the child support obligation, but the Child Support Administration does the collection incorrectly. At present using the agency’s present policy in that case example of a parent’s disposable income going down to $150. then the garnishment stays the same at $75. which is increased to 50% of that base number which then greatly exceeds the original percentage of the Court Order and thereby violates the Federal guidelines and the federal Consumer Credit Protection Act (CCPA) U.S.C.A. Title 15 Chapter 41 Subchapter II § 1673. Restriction on garnishment, link HERE,
It is important to point out that this CCPA allowance of up to 50% -65% are in fact punitive in nature, and the high percentages are meant to punish the parent, and it is not some sliding scale for the arbitrary and capricious collections and garnishments of child support without first acquiring a Court order based after the parent’s right to a Judicial review before ordering the punitive large percentages, and thus the protection of CCPA is now being violated by this agency. Raising the collection / garnishment from any lower percentage to any higher percentage is a type of punishment and that is why the CCPA requires more then due process by Judicial review but "substantial due process, and which is subject to judicial review", 15 U.S.C. 1673(b)(1)(A)., because in our legal system only a Court of law can inflict an increase of punishment and not a State agency as the enforcement is doing in these cases.
Increasing the garnishment percentage (up to 65%) means punishing the parent without the right to Judicial Review (substantial due process) just for missing one day of work, and punishment for loosing their job, for getting sick or injured or even for getting fired or laid off or any arbitrary reason the agency increases the child support percentage and the Federal protection for the parents is violated by this agency’s procedure because it does not provide the parents’ legal protections.
Parents are legally protected from abusive collections and garnishments by percentage restrictions and the State Courts misinterpretation of those guidelines makes so the parents are denied their rightful protection from oppression and unjust child support collection against parents that can not afford to pay the fixed number while they might be able to comply with the percentage amount. The percentage is to be consistent as like it is in tax payments and Social Security payroll deductions. This is a big reason for the parents owing huge amounts of child support arrears because their legal protection in the form of percentages is subverted by this State agency collections. Some parents are being charged and assessed child support arrears when they earned nothing, while they do not have a “specific description and numeric criteria” in order to collect from, per 45 C.F.R. section 302.56(C)(2). The child support was to be like the payroll deductions for taxes and Social Security payments done by percentage of the income, so to do otherwise is destructive to the payer and contrary to the Federal law. Child support is to have a constant percentage amount and not constant payment amount.
The Child Support Enforcement agency has interpreted the Federal regulations incorrectly and thereby exceeds its authority and has become a collection tyrant creating oppressive, unjust and unlawful arrears, and enacting abusive garnishment and collections, and the agency needs to be corrected.
The Courts are the only means of gaining the protection given to citizens and parents and that protection is to be based on the correct interpretation of the law. The federal gov must now stop and correct the injustice and rule breaking from continuing against parents by the States because parents deserve and have right to equal protection of the law.
In Child Support cases there is a presumption of parents being "deadbeats" because it is a slander put onto all paying parents by our gov to demonize the parents. There is NOT a presumption of innocents.
Even in a trial the question of "Guilt or Not Guilty" only means did the parent pay the Child Support or did they not? if the parent paid the c/s the parent must prove the money was paid (prove their innocence) or if the money was not paid then the parent is guilty (and a deadbeat) regardless of why the money was not paid. If the parent was in the Hospital in a comma or underemployed / unemployed, accident or anything then that does not matter as it is only = Did the parent pay then prove it, if the parent did not pay then they are guilty.
In a murder trial the defendant can plead self-defense, or temporary insanity, or accidental, or not first degree, or plead manslaughter, so that a citizen who killed a person has options far above that given to parents in Child Support cases who committed no real crime, no injured victim, no violence, as parents are treated as only a money collection procedure as in pay up or go to jail.
The laws are unjust and inhuman, so the parents are innocent even when found guilty by the Courts.
The difference is whether we presume guilt or do we presume innocence? do we believe crooked laws or American parents? is a parent a deadbeat for breaking a Court order? no they are not.
The Child Support laws are only dealing with parents and with parenting, so human beings both naturally and even unconsciously love their own offspring, and human being always want to have healthy and happy children, so for us to presume a parent is a deadbeat and for the law to treat parents accordingly means we are being inhuman against the parents.
In cases where the poorest of poor children with custodial are living on welfare (public assistance) then under federal law the States do not have to give the Child Support to the families and the States keep the Child Support loot in the State treasury. So this means that the poorest of poor children on welfare do NOT even receive the Child Support when the separated parent does pays it.
Each State has a different link and set of rules but they all some where include the instruction that the poorest of the poor on welfare do not get paid the Child Support even when it does get paid as each State keeps their own c/s loot.
1) Regular child support helps state lower cost of welfare assistance.
2) Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, Sec. 457. [42 U.S.C. 657] (a) Linked HERE.
Each State gets to keep the Child Support loot away from the poorest of poor families.
So in reality the Child Support system is NOT and does NOT serve the poor and needy children as it is just a political policy perpetrated against our society for other reasons.
And this does NOT mean some "conspiracy" theory as what this mean is that the Child Support system is a misguided and ignorant act of gov.
This is an important issue yet many people want to just gloss over it, in that the poorest of poor families on Public Assistance do not receive the Child Support even if it does get paid because the States seize the money into the State treasury.
If the poorest of families do not receive the Child Support then why is the Government enforcing it for richer families?
Within this process the Gov is declaring that the poorest of families already have enough and do not need more, as in they do not need and do not receive the Child Support even if it does get paid.
We have parents (not criminals) going in and out of jails all across the USA when there is no real crime, no victim, the Child Support money is not even needed, and the parents are unjustly turned into criminals without any realistic justification.
It is our society self-destructing under inhuman laws by an unneeded parenting police.
It really was not unusual for Men and Women / husband and wives / fathers and mothers, to break up and get back together at a later time, because human relationships have had hard times since the beginning of humanity.
Most any couple will work out their own problems if they are given the chance and the time to do so.
The problem with the divorce laws and the Child Support and Custody laws is that the Courts and Attorneys jump into the middle of these break ups, so then when the law interferes the couples are driven into separate corners and entwined into legalities and the family unit gets utterly destroyed with no hope of a reconciliation.
We have created a system which violates families, violates parenting, alienates the children, undermines the social structure, and it helps no one.
Our laws are an attack onto our own people and it needs to be stopped.
We can put a blessed end to the unjust thieving Child Support once and for all nationwide under federal mandate.