Middle Class Child Support for Alabamians To Increase 33% And Decrease For The Rich

ACT NOW BY JOINING THE ALABAMA FAMILY RIGHTS ASSOCIATION AND LETTING YOUR VOICE BE HEARD. $4.2 BILLION OF YOUR ANNUAL TAX DOLLARS GOES TO FUEL AN UNJUST SYSTEM:

www.alfra.org

e-mail alfra-tusc@hotmail.com

Tuscaloosa Chapter: 205-765-0500

The State of Alabama Advisory Committe On Child Support Guidelines And Enforcement met in Montgomery on September 21, 2007. The purpose of the meeting was to justify a 33% increase in child support for the middle class while decreasing child support obligations for the rich and impoversished. The committe is comprised of Associate Supreme Court Justices, Circuit Court Clerks, Department of Human Resources, Child Support Enforcement Division and economic advisors. The full transcript of the meeting can be downloaded at: http://www.protectfathersrights.org/downloads.php

The new guidelines have already been distributed to family law attorneys across the state

We expect the Advisory Committee to vote and submit their recommendation to the Supreme Court for approval this Spring. Act now so that we can stop this injustice!

There is no question that non-custodial parent should provide financially support their children. The problem occurs when greed and manipulation enters the system and destroys families. The Advisory committee stated that "the (child support calculation) schedule is devised to ensure that the non-custodial parent's income will never be below poverty".

Child support consists of payments derived from the child support schedule, child care, medical and education. The committe has failed to look at these components as a whole. Although the support schedule will not place a parent below poverty, the combined components will and already do. The average Alabama male earns $2,000 per month in net income. Child support based only on the support schedule for two children is approx. $600/mo assuming the mother's monthly gross is $1400/mo. Under the new guidelines, support payments would increase $200 for a total of $800. Now lets add in child care so that the mother can work, which is an additional $400 in accordance with current law. The total is now $1200/mo for this father, not including medical, education or alimony to the ex-spouse. Leaving this individual $800/mo to live on is completely unjust. Consider $400 for rent/mortgage, no leaving him only $400 to pay bills and live on. How is this father going to provide food, clothing, and entertainment for his children during his parenting time??? Heaven forbid this father attended college with the hopes of providing more for his children. How would he pay of the student loan debt. Many jobs in the post 9/11 era require a security status which cannot be obtained with poor credit. The parent in this example has been ruined. Unable to better himself for the sake of his children. The children lose the oportunity for a higher education and a higher quality of life

www.supportthemovie.com

This is going to have a drastic effect on the economy as a whole. The next economic crisis is going to be related to the inability for individuals to pay their high credit debt. Loss of equity from the housing crash, increased inflation, the looming recession, and rising energy costs are cripling the middle class. So why would Alabama and other states consider raising child support at this point in time; Two words, FEDERAL FUNDING.

States are losing lots of money from property tax attributed to property devalue and sales tax causeed by consumer conservatism. Federal money is provided to the states for the collection and enforcement of child support to the tune of $4.2 billion annually. States receive federal money proportional to the amount of child support collected. Increase child support and you increase state funding. This is courtesy of the Social Security Welfare Reform Act Title IV-D. Go to Lary Holland's website below for a thorough explanation of Title IV-D.

http://www.laryholland.com/ssacse/

I also recommend obtaining a copy of Dr. Stephen Baskerville's book "Taken Into Custody"

http://www.protectfathersrights.org/shop.php

Most people do not understand that even with joint custody, the non-custodial parent is only allowed standard visitation (72hrs/mo) unless the custodial parent agrees to more. Withholding a child from a loving fit parent is CHILD ABUSE. The current system allows children of divorce to be used as pawns. 80% of the population supports 50/50 equal parenting. The presidential candidates support equal parenting. See Mike Huckabee interview www.crispe.org and Ron Paul at http://onsecondthought.tv/videos.htm . So why are fit parents being excluded from their children's lives? Simple; yep you guessed it, MONEY!

Alabama Judicial Rule 32 governs child support in the state of Alabama.

http://www.fa-ir.org/alabama/cs/Rule32.htm

This rule states that deviations from the guidelines are permitted for:

"a) Shared physical custody or visitation rights providing for periods of physical custody or care of children by the obligor parent substantially in excess of those customarily approved or ordered by the court;"

Anotherwords, the more time the non-custodial parent spends with the child the less money he or she is obligated to pay. Makes sense, since this parent would be relieving the custodial parent of costs such as food, clothing, etc. In fact; 50/50 equal parenting would eliminate the need for child support as both parents would be providing equally for the child. But wait... how would the states get their federal money? They wouldn't. That is why many courts are reluctant to order a visitation schedule to the non-custodial parent in excess of the standard every other weekend.

Standard visitation is even awarded in joint custody situations. Joint custody does not mean joint physical custody. An interesting point which is often overlooked, is that Rule 32 was not intended for joint legal custody situations in the first place. Down on the bottom, you will find a comment section from the Supreme Court stating:

"The Alabama child support guidelines do not specifically address the problem of establishing a support order in joint legal custody situations."

This is because the guidelines where based on a scenerio in which the non-custodial parent has essentially abondanded the child. It was not designed for parents who are actively engaged in their child's life.