Child Support as USA Politics.

[JPCusick]

I am NOT campaigning here as I just want to discuss such things, but I am a candidate in my Maryland for the US Senate 2012, but if I win then my politics will affect the entire USA.

My point and platform is to radically reform the Child Support laws under federal mandate. Link.

As like the law says the c/s must be taken as a percentage but instead the State Courts only order fixed set amounts which is severely abusive and detrimental to all concerned.

Thereby the laws have unjustly turned parenting into a crime and turned parents into criminals and it destroys the family unit and alienates the children.

The system needs to be stopped or dramatically reformed and yet most people are just determined to pretend that the injustices and ruin are just acceptable conditions.

Child Support claims to be helping children when it is really just playing politics with our society.

Reference link (scroll down the page for more critical info) = Unable to pay child support, poor parents jailed - US news - MSNBC.com

So I was wondering if anyone here has any input onto this subject?

 

[BigRob]

I am NOT campaigning here as I just want to discuss such things, but I am a candidate in my Maryland for the US Senate 2012, but if I win then my politics will affect the entire USA.

My point and platform is to radically reform the Child Support laws under federal mandate. Link.

As like the law says the c/s must be taken as a percentage but instead the State Courts only order fixed set amounts which is severely abusive and detrimental to all concerned.

Thereby the laws have unjustly turned parenting into a crime and turned parents into criminals and it destroys the family unit and alienates the children.

The system needs to be stopped or dramatically reformed and yet most people are just determined to pretend that the injustices and ruin are just acceptable conditions.

Child Support claims to be helping children when it is really just playing politics with our society.

Reference link (scroll down the page for more critical info) = Unable to pay child support, poor parents jailed - US news - MSNBC.com

So I was wondering if anyone here has any input onto this subject?

My advice for your campaign is to not make an issue about this. I doubt many voters in Maryland care much about reforming child support laws right now.

Unless you have issue polled this question and it polls very well, I would not spend anymore time talking about it on your campaign.

 

[dogtowner]

Get rid of no fault divorce and the issue largely takes care of itself. Kids lose when parents divorce because they want to have sex with whomever. Sure there are some legitimate divorces but there needs to be a reason. Today thats just not the case.

 

[JPCusick]

Reply

My advice for your campaign is to not make an issue about this. I doubt many voters in Maryland care much about reforming child support laws right now.

Unless you have issue polled this question and it polls very well, I would not spend anymore time talking about it on your campaign.

In 2010 I ran for the office of Maryland Governor and I lost against the big rich incumbent but I still got 46,411 votes, see it HERE, so that means I do have a voters base here for this new Statewide election campaign.

But even more-so the reason that I push this issue is because the Child Support is so evil and hurtful that it needs to be stopped and fought and I can not sit back without at least trying to do what I can for those being trampled by the ignorant and inhuman laws.

Otherwise I have no real desire to be a US Senator or a State Governor, as I really do not care a bit about holding any political office, except in this case it is to do what I can to help end that cruel injustice being done in this world which I happen to live within.

Winning some election is not my primary goal, as fighting against the evil Child Support and Custody laws is my true point and purpose.

 

[BigRob]

Re: Reply

In 2010 I ran for the office of Maryland Governor and I lost against the big rich incumbent but I still got 46,411 votes, see it HERE, so that means I do have a voters base here for this new Statewide election campaign.

As someone who has run numerous political campaigns, my advice is simply, unless you have issue polled this and this is what people want to talk about, you are not going to gain traction making this your primary focus.

But even more-so the reason that I push this issue is because the Child Support is so evil and hurtful that it needs to be stopped and fought and I can not sit back without at least trying to do what I can for those being trampled by the ignorant and inhuman laws.

This may be accurate, but the point is, if it doesn't get you elected, it doesn't get you elected.

Otherwise I have no real desire to be a US Senator or a State Governor, as I really do not care a bit about holding any political office, except in this case it is to do what I can to help end that cruel injustice being done in this world which I happen to live within.

Winning some election is not my primary goal, as fighting against the evil Child Support and Custody laws is my true point and purpose.

I have no problem with you fighting against that issue if that is what motivates you, but it is a lot easier to impact the issue as a Senator than not.

 

[Dr.Who]

Both parents have a duty to take care of their children. The amount they have to give to make sure that that happens is neither a percent nor a fixed amount.

It is whatever it takes.

I suspect the fixed amount has a better chance of being close to the amount it takes than a percent would. If a parent loses his job the kids still need the same amount even though the percent of zero would be zero. If a parent gets a ten fold raise the kids would still need the same amount even though a percent of that higher salary would be a much higher number.

 

[Openmind]

Both parents have a duty to take care of their children. The amount they have to give to make sure that that happens is neither a percent nor a fixed amount.

It is whatever it takes.

I suspect the fixed amount has a better chance of being close to the amount it takes than a percent would. If a parent loses his job the kids still need the same amount even though the percent of zero would be zero. If a parent gets a ten fold raise the kids would still need the same amount even though a percent of that higher salary would be a much higher number.

While I agree with the intent of your comment (the child has the right to be cared for no matter what, by both parents), I think a "percentage" might be more fair, as it is clear that, if a parent loses his job (or her job), whether the child lives with that parent or not, it is normal (not nice, not the optimal outcome) that the child will share in his family's hardship. If living with both parents, it may mean fewer toys, fewer trips to McDonalds, and wearing sneakers from KMart instead of Nikes.

And, if a father (or mother) suddenly wins millions, or just gets a much better job that pays twice as much, the child should (as in any normal family) benefit from that happy event also. .. as he would if he lived in an intact family. It wouldn't be fair, in my opinion, to have a child living in poverty in a terrible, maybe dangerous neighborhoo, if one of his parent lives in a penthouse in the middle of NY City.

I know, these examples are extreme.. .but you get my point.

 

[Little-Acorn]

When parents have kids, the parents owe those kids a decent upbringing, to the extent those parents can provide. (and when the kids grow up and have their own kids, they will owe THEIR kids the same, etc. etc.).

When parents with kids divorce, they are renegging on the debt they owe their kids. Even if the divorce was justified, even inevitable, they still owe that debt to their kids... and the divorce interferes in major ways with its settlement, regardless of the circumstances of the divorce.

How SHOULD the parents fulfill the debt they owe to their kids, after they divorce? Child support payments are part of the way. Visitation is another, etc. What exactly SHOULD the judge decide?

In California (divorce rulings vary by state), the judge will set support payments based on what each parent earns, and on what each parent needs to support himself. If later one of them loses a job, or has unexpected large expenses (car wreck, illness etc.), the judge will adjust payments accordingly. His goal is to achieve what is best for the child, and "not impossible" for the parents. He will not leave a payment schedule that totally strips one parent beyond his means.

I don't know how it goes in other states. That's how it is in California.

Is someone here, saying this is "wrong", and that it should be done some other way instead?

 

[JPCusick]

While I agree with the intent of your comment (the child has the right to be cared for no matter what, by both parents), I think a "percentage" might be more fair, as it is clear that, if a parent loses his job (or her job), whether the child lives with that parent or not, it is normal (not nice, not the optimal outcome) that the child will share in his family's hardship. If living with both parents, it may mean fewer toys, fewer trips to McDonalds, and wearing sneakers from KMart instead of Nikes.

And, if a father (or mother) suddenly wins millions, or just gets a much better job that pays twice as much, the child should (as in any normal family) benefit from that happy event also. .. as he would if he lived in an intact family.

This above is very well said, and I totally agree.

Except the one small point that the children do have a rightful claim to their parents even financially, but that is just between the child and parent and NOT a matter for the brute force of law enforcement.

We know the super Billionaires Bill and Melinda Gates have said they are going to give away their billions and give their children just a few million, but our system puts dead-broke parents in jails all across the USA just because they can not pay the Court order for Child Support. So if poor children have some legal claim to riches from their poor parents - then the far richer children must have a claim to the bigger riches of their parents too. I say no to both.

It wouldn't be fair, in my opinion, to have a child living in poverty in a terrible, maybe dangerous neighborhood, if one of his parent lives in a penthouse in the middle of NY City.

I know, these examples are extreme.. .but you get my point.

When a Government is trying to enforce "fairness" between Men and Women / Dads and Moms and between children and their parents - then the laws have crossed the line of decency which has already been crossed.

In a real life family then the parents can make their children live in their garage, or buy their clothing from second-hand thrift store and eat the cheapest foods, and some families raise their children as farmers, or raise their children to go door to door as Jehovah Witnesses, so we have no business telling / ordering parents in raising their children - unless there is actual physical abuse.

 

[Openmind]

This above is very well said, and I totally agree.

Except the one small point that the children do have a rightful claim to their parents even financially, but that is just between the child and parent and NOT a matter for the brute force of law enforcement.

We know the super Billionaires Bill and Melinda Gates have said they are going to give away their billions and give their children just a few million, but our system puts dead-broke parents in jails all across the USA just because they can not pay the Court order for Child Support. So if poor children have some legal claim to riches from their poor parents - then the far richer children must have a claim to the bigger riches of their parents too. I say no to both.



When a Government is trying to enforce "fairness" between Men and Women / Dads and Moms and between children and their parents - then the laws have crossed the line of decency which has already been crossed.

In a real life family then the parents can make their children live in their garage, or buy their clothing from second-hand thrift store and eat the cheapest foods, and some families raise their children as farmers, or raise their children to go door to door as Jehovah Witnesses, so we have no business telling / ordering parents in raising their children - unless there is actual physical abuse.

I personally feel that forcing a child to go door to door to "sell" a religion is minor child abuse and it will scar a child for ever. I personally feel that not providing the same level of "comfort" or at least necessities to the children that the rest of the family enjoys is minor child abuse, or at least neglect.

In the case of the very wealthy (i.e., Bill Gates whom you have given as an example), I believe their stand on "inheritance" is EXTREMELY healthy. The Gates children will certainly never suffer from neglect, and by receiving "a few millions" instead of a "few billions," it normalizes their life, and provides more incentive to become their own person, to enjoy their own successes.

I applaud Bill Gates and his wife, as well as Warren Buffett (who is doing the same thing) for their conscious capitalism stand.

 

[Little-Acorn]

It should be noted that JP Cusick is running for public office, and has put up a website.

Among the information he put on his campaign website ( http://votejp.webs.com ) is this:

http://votejp.webs.com/biographypage.htm

Biography condensed.

The candidate James P. Cusick, Sr. was born on March 17, 1956, in Leonardtown, MD. The 6th of 12 siblings. High school G.E.D., 1975. Married high school girl friend 1976. Had a son, JPC,Jr. born 1977. Marriage separated 1981, divorced 1983. He traveled the USA to Florida, Louisiana, Texas, Arizona,Nevada, California, Wyoming, Illinois, New York. Returned to hometown St. Mary's County 1992. In 1994 was the first time incarceration 3 months for child support and again 6 months in 1997. The incarcerations were done wrongfully by the Court with unethical pressure from the child support agency for St. Mary's County. Mr. Cusick did try to cooperate but the child support enforcement was too severely corrupt. So because of that corruption he was released from jail in a worse condition of homeless and destitute with the child support officials demanding more cash payments regardless of his condition so Mr. Cusick proceeded to spray paint the 4 pillars on the front of the Circuit Court house in Leonardtown with green spray paint writing out the words "Child Support is Legalized Stealing", and, "Thou Shalt Not Steal", and, "Michael Harris Thief Master", and, "Inside this Court is a Den of Thieves". No other damage was done. He just wanted others to know what was going on. He was arrested, pleaded guilty, served 18 months in the County Detention Center. Then 1998 Mr. Cusick went and painted the 2 pillars in front of the child support enforcement office in Leonardtown with similar words of, Child Support Thieves, and, "Thou shalt Not Steal". Got arrested, pleaded guilty again, served 14 months in County Detention Center.

It was reasoned then that the local Courts just enforce the unjust child support laws and do not make the laws so after release in July 2000, Mr. Cusick traveled to Annapolis and spray painted the two pillars of the Maryland State House with red spray paint saying, "Child Support Thieves", and, "Thou Shalt Not Steal". Got arrested, refused to enter plea, had jury trial, sentenced to 3 years in State prison for the misdemeanor. There was no other damage done. Mr. Cusick does not have any felony, these actions were all minor offenses. He considers the actions to have been political crimes and thus he was a political prisoner. He was released from the Maryland D.O.C (prison) in August 2003, and his child support case is closed.

 

[Openmind]

It should be noted that JP Cusick is running for public office, and has put up a website.

Among the information he put on his campaign website ( http://votejp.webs.com ) is this:

Too much information for me. . .Thanks!

 

[clarkatticus]

I believe all marriages should have pre-nups that should be re visited every three years or in every major financial occurance. I do not believe the state should have any say in it or should there be laws to govern it. All divorces should end up in civil court or barring unequal earnings in mediation. Children should go to the parent most able and willing to care so that the state bears no encumberance, with shared custody if possible. I also believe no one should be able to enter the contract of marriage without legal counciling as it would be a binding contract.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Prenuptial Agreement : A written document that states you are not ready to marry that person.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Get rid of no fault divorce and the issue largely takes care of itself. Kids lose when parents divorce because they want to have sex with whomever. Sure there are some legitimate divorces but there needs to be a reason. Today thats just not the case.

odd, seems you think that divorce is all about getting laid more....