There are just three days left to express how crucial it is to have minimum financial safeguards included in the federal regulations that govern the Title IV-D child support system. Submit your comments here: https://federalregister.gov/articles/2014/11/17/2014-26822/flexibility-efficiency-and-modernization-in-child-support-enforcement-programs#page-68554 [begin copy and paste] 1) There are no caps on child support orders or financial safeguards based on the cost of raising children. 2) There are no fundamental safeguards in place to ensure that all parents are treated fairly and equally and should not need to fight over custody and future income and subject their children to the ongoing family conflict, competing with each other only to survive. 3) That courts, attorneys, custody evaluators and a plethora of so called family service providers, including private corporations involved with court imposed forced-labor work programs receive federal grants and monies based on how much child support they can collect and how many they can force to do their dirty work to offset expenditures created by dysfunctional and outmoded public policies. 4) The pending Proposed Rule by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the Children and Families Administration, 11/17/2014, acknowledges that, Setting child support orders that reflect an actual ability to pay is crucial to encouraging compliance... and As a general rule, child support guidelines and orders should reflect actual income of parents and be changed proactively to ensure current support orders reflect current circumstances of the parents... and that compliance increases significantly when a child support order is 15 percent or less of a parents income. Yet, no provision has been made that establishes a clear standard based on economic reality and the actual cost of raising children, reflecting international norms and reform trends recently exemplified by New Zealand: ird.govt.nz/childsupport-changes/ 5) The irony of a heretofore historically unknown divorce trend, and a no-fault divorce system that was intended to reduce conflict, is that we now have a ruthlessly administered penal structure driven by multi-tentacle financial incentives that inadvertently instigates and perpetuates conflict, destroys the lives of children and parents, fuels anti-social addictions and mental health problems, and is used to justify the world’s most inhumane prison system ever built, from which we currently are suffering devastating social consequences on a scale never before experienced. The following recommendation has been proposed for inclusion by Divorce Corp and is based on simple math and economic reality, making it is as good a place to start as any if we are serious about gender/parent equality, producing socially capable children and maintaining a functional society based on human rights and decency. I agree with Divorce Corp. and for reasons stated above hereby propose the following language for new Section 302.56: § 302.56 Guidelines for setting child support awards. (a) Within one year after completion of the State’s next quadrennial review of its guidelines, pursuant to § 302.56(e), as a condition of approval of its State plan, the State must establish one set of guidelines by law or by judicial or administrative action for setting and modifying child support award amounts within the State that meet the requirements in this section. (b) The State must have procedures for making the guidelines available to all persons in the State whose duty it is to set child support award amounts. (c) the guidelines established under paragraph (a) of this section must at a minimum: (1) Take into consideration the most recent Federal Adjusted Gross Income of both parents; (2) For all births occurring after the date for establishment of the new guidelines specified in paragraph (a), and when the paying parent is unwilling or unable to parent the child at least 35% of the time, be based on half the statewide median marginal cost (“SMMC”) for the average family to support a first, second, or subsequent child, plus half the cost of daycare when both parents work more than half-time, and result in a computation of the support obligation that does not exceed the lesser of a) 5% of the difference in the adjusted gross income of the parents for one child, 8% for two children, and 10% for three or more children, or b) twice the SMMC; (3) Address how the parents will provide for the child(ren)’s health care needs through health insurance coverage and/or through cash medical support in accordance with § 303.31 of this chapter; (4) Take into consideration the paying parent’s subsistence needs and provide that any amount ordered for support be based upon available data related to the parent’s actual earnings, income, assets, or other evidence of ability to pay, such as documentary evidence that income or assets are not consistent with a noncustodial parent’s current standard of living; and (5) Provide that incarceration may not be treated as voluntary unemployment in establishing or modifying support orders. (d) The State must include a copy of the guidelines in its State plan. (e) The State must review, and revise, if appropriate, the guidelines established under paragraph (a) of this section at least once every four years to ensure that their application results in the determination of appropriate child support award amounts. (f) The State must provide that there will be a rebuttable presumption, in any judicial or administrative proceeding for the award of child support, that the amount of the award which would result from the application of guidelines established under paragraph (a) of this section is the correct amount of child support to be awarded. The presumption can be rebutted successfully with genetic evidence that the obligor is not the biological parent of the child, and by the lack of written adoption records, in which case there will be no support obligation. (g) A written finding or specific finding on the record of a judicial or administrative proceeding for the award of child support that the application of the guidelines established under paragraph (a) of this section would be unjust or inappropriate in a particular case will be sufficient to rebut the presumption in that case, as determined under criteria established by the State; but in no event shall the award exceed the limit specified in paragraph (c)(2) unless the child has special needs as certified and quantified by a licensed medical doctor. Such criteria must take into consideration the best interests of the child. Findings that rebut the guidelines shall state the amount of support that would have been required under the guidelines and include a justification of why the order varies from the guidelines. (h) Child support awards established under paragraph (a) of this section may recognize parenting time provisions pursuant to State child support guidelines or when both parents have agreed to the parenting time provisions. (i) As part of the review of a State’s guidelines required under paragraph (e) of this section, a State must consider economic data on the marginal cost of raising children and analyze case data, by gender, gathered through sampling or other methods, on the application of, and deviations from, the guidelines. The analysis of the data must be used in the State’s review of the guidelines to ensure that gender bias is declining steadily, and that deviations from the guidelines are limited. Deviation from the presumptive child support amount may be based on factors established by the State. [end copy and paste] Submit your comments here: https://federalregister.gov/articles/2014/11/17/2014-26822/flexibility-efficiency-and-modernization-in-child-support-enforcement-programs#page-68554
Posted on: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 02:31:57 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015