I was recently reminded of this yesterday. My son was working on a history report for high school, and asked me to help him with it. The topic was on the Bulgarian role in WW-I, and he was looking for help in organizing his research on the topic.

Now, I have a huge interest in modern history, particularly in the area of modern warfare. So I was taken aback to realize my lack of knowledge of that particular topic. So, the two of us spent an evening “burning the midnight oil” to obtain facts and exchange ideas on how to put it into a report. In short, it was a tremendous learning opportunity for both of us that (hopefully) enriched both our lives.

Similarly, even though a life-long musician, I had never had much of an interest in jazz. However, my son is an accomplished sax player who has played in several jazz bands. Last year, he introduced me to the music of Miles Davis and Gerry Mulligan, and now I have learned a great appreciation of the music of these and other jazz greats.

Finally, several years ago, my very artistic daughter introduced me to the art of Japanese anime, a cultural art form to which before I was totally ignorant.

So to add to the list of societal problems that arise from division of families, I would like to add the loss of enlightenment of parents from their kids. I can only wonder what other marvels I have missed by not having daily contact with my children. This is a very real loss to our society and culture as a whole.

The author’s objections to this bill amount to

(1) the mother might not want the father to know he is the father, and ;

(2) the mother does not want the father involved because of rape or incest.

This is My Response:

So, once again, we want to regulate based on what one parent (i.e the Mother) wants, without regard to the other parent’s rights.

(1) the Mother’s safety concerns are already covered: restraining orders are readily available to any female who wants to get one against a male. No questions asked. If the Father knows he is the Father, and if the Mother feels threatened, then she should get a restraining order.

Oh, what? She does not feel the restraining order is sufficient? Well, then. Why do they exist in the first place? Maybe just as a legal vehicle so legitimate fathers who pose NO THREAT TO THE MOTHER can be legally separated from their children?

(2) Once again: we already have laws for this. If a father is “unfit”, then the state DCYF intercedes and requires supervised visitation with the children.

I believe that this Tennessee bill is a landfall to put an end to false accusations and illegal paternity claims for child support.

Returning to the previous discussion of the basic problems with current child support laws, let’s take a look at wage garnishment, or “assignment”. This is a much broader issue than just attaching a weekly paycheck. This also includes seizure of bank account, retirement and other liquid assets. It means mandatory confiscation of tax refunds. It means states refusing to give you a drivers license if you owe support. It even means suspending your right to travel abroad if you are behind in child support.

Obviously, many people think this is fair and just; after all if one is not supporting their children, should not the State be allowed to take harsh measures? My argument against this is that “where does it stop?” Currently, these harsh penalties are not applied when one is behind in in alimony payments; they are not imposed for any type of civil debt (mortgage, etc.); they are not even imposed to this extent when taxes are owed.

But the other issue goes back to the fundamental problem of “guilty until proven innocent”. Wage assignment is now mandatory in NH, unless extenuating circumstance can be shown that it should not be assessed. Why? If I have always voluntarily paid my support in full and on-time, why should the State feel obliged to garnish my check? It is not like income taxes, where I will get refund if my pay is over-witheld. Any money paid in support is forfeit, unless one spends a huge amount of money to go to Court and try and prove that they have overpaid.

Good Luck with that one. Besides, the most you could recover is what you have overpaid since the date of service of such an order. Any amount prior to that is most definitely forfeit.

Naturally, the answer is simple: follow the money. Since the State gets a kickback from Federal Title IV-D funds for every dollar of support they collect, the State has a vested interest in making sure Fathers pay. And what better way then taking their money before they see it?

Nevertheless, wage assignment by the State without cause is an unfair violation of of our Constitutional right and primary legal precedent of innocent until proved guilty. Courts should only be allowed to put in place wage assignment when the individual has proven that they will not pay their support otherwise.

thebostonchannel.com — Look at this common societal problem, abuse of the restraining order system, that has become a weapon against men! That’s right, women (this doesn’t work for men) are obtaining false restraining orders at alarming rates just to gain revenge, control or money (often in court). Much of this is never brought out publically [but we all know huh?]

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/multimedia/m/21504162/restraining_order_abuse.htm?q=restraining orders

However, having more reasonable guidelines is only part of the problem with the current child support system. The arguably bigger problem with the system is the generous discretion family court judges and child support referees have in determining what constitutes income. After all, what does it matter if there is a formula to calculate a “fair” amount of support if the Judge can simply and arbitrarily decide what the obligor and obligee’s respective incomes are? In the IT community, we have a saying: “garbage in is garbage out”. An apt description of today’s child support system.

What sort of discretion does a judge have? For example, if you are a full-time W-2 employee, one would imagine it is cut-and-dried: just read your paystub. However, what if you get a one-time bonus of 10% of your salary? Or perhaps you were laid-off and the only job you could get results in a lower annual salary than you were making previously? And if you work out-of-state, is the amount of state income tax the amount withheld from your paycheck, or the result of last year’s state tax return? If you are a self-employed individual, the circumstances are even more varied.

In all of the above cases, the judge can and does determine how they are handled. A 10% bonus one year could be assumed to be for all years and added to your income for support calculation purposes. A judge can impute, or assume, income above what you actually earn, using the rationale that you are “not trying hard enough” to find suitable employment. A self-employed sole-proprietor may or may not have some, all, or no Schedule C Business deductions from gross revenue allowed, solely at the judge’s discretion.

So it is not enough to simply tweak the current guideline formulas. To have meaningful and fair guidelines, stringent rules have to be set in place as to what and what does not constitue income for purposes of support. This should not be that hard. After all, the IRS has rules as to what constitutes taxable income, so why cannot the same rules be applied to child support determination? This should be the primary basis for any support reform measures.