From: root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Making a change
Date: 17 Apr 92 17:32:52 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

In article <20720160@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> laszlo@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Laszlo Nobi) writes:
>In alt.child-support, root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:
>> 
>> In Washington, the view is that the CP should continue to get the support
>> payments in order to "maintain the permanent residence of the child/ren."
>> It's actually in the laws, but I can't cite the specific entry. I just 
>> know I've seen it.
>
>This is the common argument against allowing credit for visitation.
>However, what they don't seem to understand is that a significant amount
>of the "cost" of raising the children follows them.  For example, food,
>transportation, and entertainment costs come with them when I have
>visitation.  I would venture to guess that this represents nearly HALF of 
>the cost.  What about the residence I maintain for them?  Shouldn't I get
>some sort of credit for that cost? This doesn't even take ito account that
>the guideline amounts are already greatly inflated.
>

Amen, Laszlo. I questioned the commissioner in my case a long while back, 
about the fact that the law says that the home has to be maintained for the
kids. (Neil Reilley, Spokane, WA) I said "But what about me? Don't I have to
maintain a home too? His response was "Well, you have to have a home for
yourself anyway." Since it was court, I didn't think I could get away with
calling him an idiot...

Washington law has changed recently. The idea of "credits for overnights" is
now history. (There's an interface period where courts can still do it, but
it's being phased out). Instead, what they've done is to write in that BOTH
parents may take a "deduction" for their home expenses of between $600 and
$800 dollars per month. This amount is deducted from the gross earnings of
the NCP and the net earnings of the CP. The remaining income is used to
compute child support.

It has always bothered me that the States (and the feds) have a do-as-I-say
and-not-as-I-do approach to child-support. The AFDC grants for families on
Public Assistance provides (approximately) $100 per child as the amount
needed to keep a child healthy. Further, if there is money problems because
the support payers "overspent in other areas" those benefits may be reduced
or terminated. The belief is so strong that this is more than sufficient,
that some states are enacting welfare baby laws which say that mothers who
have more than 3 kids while receiving assistance, will not receive benefits
for the 4th (and up) child/ren to keep the mothers FROM MAKING A PROFIT!

It strikes me that the courts should not be able to order more support for a
given case than the state of venue would provide to the same family. Since
that isn't the case at all, one must come to a conclusion:

A divorce amounts to a dependency case for the family.

A dependency case is a vehicle whereby a state will look at a family, and say
"You can't handle your child properly --you abuse and neglect it. So we're
taking your baby and making it a ward of the state. Your rights as parents
have terminated." The parallels are amazing between divorce and dependency.
The state decides where your child will live, and uses the self same
guidelines in divorce as it does in dependency. The state will decide what
services will be granted to the child, and who will pay for it. The state
will decide how long the services will be provided for the child. The state
will review the case every 24 months (or more/less often depending on
circumstances) to determine if any changes are necessary. Finally, the state
will also determine what services are due the guardian of the child to help
with the burdens of assuming the guardianship.

Now, doesn't that sound an awful lot like a divorce case?

The rights of a parent in a dependency case outweigh the rights of the
parents in a divorce case. They outweigh them by a rather significant margin.

It seems to me that if the state is going to take a paternalistic interest in
a family, and it is going to make determinations outside the stipulations of
both parents (in dependency cases, the state HAS to provide free legal
counsel for the parents) then shouldn't the same guidelines be imposed on the
state in divorce cases? As the bard once wrote, "A rose by any other name
would still smell as sweet." 

It was asked here for constructive suggestion to "even out" the laws of
divorce. Here are a few:

1) A court may not override the wishes of BOTH parties in a divorce unless:
   a) the state is willing to be wholly responsible for its actions in;
      that if the court removes a child from the control of a parent then
      it must take financial and developmental responsibility for the child.
   b) that any actions against a parent be an equal action against both of
      the parents, absent a clear and present danger to the child which is
      provable beyond a reasonable doubt.
   c) that the state must increase benefits to the child/ren in it's care
      proportional to increases in it's own incomes, regardless of the 
      reasons for those increases.
   d) that the state may only reduce benefits to the child through trial
      on a case by case basis, and must demonstrate an absence in their
      actions of detriment to the best interests of the child/ren.
2) the state must provice an agency to the children to enforce the payments
   of awarded benefits to the child whose;
   a) decisions hold the force of law.
   b) charter includes the ability to jail state employees who fail, for any
      reason, to make payments of awarded benefits on time.
   c) power includes the ability to assess fees and costs against the state 
      for costs incurred in the collection of awarded benefits.
   d) power includes the ability to garnishee income to the state on a routine 
      basis to ensure proper and timely disposition of benefits.
   e) responsibilities include providing free legal counsel to parents who
      believe that have a case against the state regarding the treatment of and
      benefits awarded to their child/ren.

Comments?

-- 
root@dogear.spk.wa.us - Bob Kirkpatrick, Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
"...I know it when I see it."  --potter stewart
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights