State of MD. violates Federal Child Support Law.

[Ken King]

I am not saying that I agree with everything this guy is saying, most of the time I don't even understand what he is saying and i don't believe he does. I also find it odd that he is running for some type of office but the only issue he discusses is CS.

However, I do want to point out one thing. Do you all agree that it is the obligation of each parent to contribute 50% of the support of the child? That has always been my understanding that both parties are obligated to support the child.

But, if you use the maryland child support calculator and both parties have an income, then, it will show contribution amounts for both party.

And if lets say that the absent parent has an income and the custodial parent chooses not to work, then the obligation for the absent parent increases to 100% while the custodial parents obligation is 0. Which means because the custodial parent chooses not to work that also gives them the right not to be responsible for supporting the child. With that being the case, why not just give custody to the absent parent if they are fit and proper to have custody? It makes no sense to me.

That actually may not be the case. The non-working parent can be assessed a "potential income" which will change the combined income and a then a proportionate split will be made from there. Also if one spouse pays alimony or say pays the mortgage on the home that amount is considered income for the other spouse. There are many factors involved and the law allows for rebutting anything that may be unfair.

 

[sinwagon]

Example of non working custodial parent



Children
Date of Birth
Children
Date of Birth
Son 01/15/2006
Mother Father Combined
1. MONTHLY ACTUAL INCOME (Before taxes) $ 0 $ 5000
a. Minus preexisting child support payment actually paid -0 -0
b. Minus health insurance premium (if child included) -0 -0
c. Minus alimony actually paid -0 -0
d. Plus/minus alimony awarded in this case +/-0 +/-0
2. MONTHLY ADJUSTED ACTUAL INCOME $ 0 $ 5000 $ 5000
3. PERCENTAGE SHARE OF INCOME (Line 2. Each parent's income divided by Combined income) 0.00 % 100.00 %
4. BASIC CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION (Apply line 2 Combined to Child Support Schedule) $ 670
a. Work-Related Child Care Expenses Code, FL,
§12-204 (g) + 0
b. Extraordinary Medical Expenses Code, FL,
§12-204 (h) + 0
c. Additional Expenses, FL, §12-204 (i) + 0
5. TOTAL CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION (Add lines 4, 4a, 4b, and 4c.) $ 670.00
6. EACH PARENT'S CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION (multiply line 3 times line 5 for each parent) $ 0.00 $ 670.00
7. RECOMMENDED CHILD SUPPORT ORDER (Bring down amount from line 6 for the non-custodial parent only. Leave custodial parent column blank. $ 0 $ 670.00
Comments, calculations, or rebuttals to schedule or adjustments if non-custodial parent directly pays extraordinary expenses:

Deduct from the recommended child support order amount (Line 7) any third party benefits paid to or for a child (e.g. SSA Disability, retirement or other third party dependency benefit).

 

[vraiblonde]

Here's the Maryland child support calculator:


http://www.alllaw.com/calculators/Childsupport/maryland/

Do you all agree that it is the obligation of each parent to contribute 50% of the support of the child?

Not necessarily. When the parents are married, one may earn a lot more than the other, therefore is contributing more for the financial support of the child. Divorce doesn't (or shouldn't) really change this much.

 

[Qurious]

i've never seen a man try so hard to shoot down child support

 

[sinwagon]

Here's the Maryland child support calculator:


http://www.alllaw.com/calculators/Childsupport/maryland/

Not necessarily. When the parents are married, one may earn a lot more than the other, therefore is contributing more for the financial support of the child. Divorce doesn't (or shouldn't) really change this much.

The actual child support calculator is found at the Maryland child support enforcement website. When, as shown above, you enter 0 for the custodial parents income, the obligation of the absent parent becomes 100%

http://www.dhr.state.md.us/cgi-bin/csea/worksheet.cgi?

 

[Bustem' Down]

This just looks to me like another example of States rights vs Federal power. I think that the fed should only make sure that the laws of the individual states are constitutionaly legal and not make laws governing hwow the state does business. If Maryland wants to do child support this way, then the fed should have no say over it.

 

[Ken King]

This just looks to me like another example of States rights vs Federal power. I think that the fed should only make sure that the laws of the individual states are constitutionaly legal and not make laws governing hwow the state does business. If Maryland wants to do child support this way, then the fed should have no say over it.

The only time the Fed gets involved is when the order isn't being complied with and then they have established how much of the disposable income can be garnished. That's it.

 

[Bustem' Down]

The only time the Fed gets involved is when the order isn't being complied with and then they have established how much of the disposable income can be garnished. That's it.

I'm not an MD resident so I just took a cursory glance at it. It's your state so I'm not going to screw with it. I've always been one for strong states with a weak fed.

 

[JPC, Sr.]

The Truth Will Set Us All Free.

... ... ...

For your benefit what you have referenced are limitations as to the amount of garnishment of a person’s salary that can be imposed, not an obligation on the limits of support that can be ordered. Additionally, what you linked states that “The consumer protections of § 303(a) of the Act do not apply, however, to any order for the support of any person issued by a court of competent jurisdiction”. It goes on to state that a person can have their wages garnished to the tune of “60% where the individual is not supporting another spouse or child.” Is it your belief that this means that child support should equal 60% of a person's salary? ... ...

I do realize what you are saying in that the State does it the State's way and not percentages and thus the State is right not wrong.

So perhaps I have failed to make myself clear. If the State could be considered right in its application and not wrong then it is using a method that is oppressive and tyranical and I have been calling it wrong because oppression and tyranny is a wrong method by my standards.

The State of MD. can abuse its people or just abuse the separated parents as it is doing now so it turns innocent parents into criminals.

If you and the State believe that tyranny and oppression against some persons in the population is okay then that is why you consider it to be right.

And for any one like me that considers injustice to any one as not okay then the lack of percentages in child support is wrong as I have said

I think this covers our difference.

 

[MMDad]

Library is open!

 

[RoseRed]

Library is open!

 

[ylexot]

I do realize what you are saying in that the State does it the State's way and not percentages and thus the State is right not wrong.

So perhaps I have failed to make myself clear. If the State could be considered right in its application and not wrong then it is using a method that is oppressive and tyranical and I have been calling it wrong because oppression and tyranny is a wrong method by my standards.

The State of MD. can abuse its people or just abuse the separated parents as it is doing now so it turns innocent parents into criminals.

If you and the State believe that tyranny and oppression against some persons in the population is okay then that is why you consider it to be right.

And for any one like me that considers injustice to any one as not okay then the lack of percentages in child support is wrong as I have said

I think this covers our difference.

Well, it seems that most of the people on here do not think it is oppressive or tyranical. So what do you think is wrong and how would you want it changed?

 

[Ken King]

The State of MD. can abuse its people or just abuse the separated parents as it is doing now so it turns innocent parents into criminals.

If you and the State believe that tyranny and oppression against some persons in the population is okay then that is why you consider it to be right.

And for any one like me that considers injustice to any one as not okay then the lack of percentages in child support is wrong as I have said

I think this covers our difference.

How does making a parent take fiscal responsibility for a child, that they brought into the world of their own free will, create an abuse by the state? Or are you meaning that those that fail to comply with a valid court order should not be held responsible for the violation of the law for not complying with the order.

What is it that you consider an injustice? That a person is required to provide support for their child/children.

Our differences are that I think that if someone brings a child into the world then they are responsible for them until the child/children is/are able to do for themself, you on the other hand don't seem to think this way.

 

[JPC, Sr.]

The Truth will Set Us All Free.

How does making a parent take fiscal responsibility for a child, that they brought into the world of their own free will, create an abuse by the state?

Because parents do take care of their own children as they did since Adam and Eve and long before Child Support was ever invented. The State Child Support laws are oppressive and unjust and so that is abuse by the State.

Or are you meaning that those that fail to comply with a valid court order should not be held responsible for the violation of the law for not complying with the order.

The Court order might be valid but it is unreasonable and it is unjust and the Courts are turning parents that do try to comply into criminals and we have dead broke parents in our modern debtor's prisons with the Courts and the State waiting for the prisoner's families to cough up the ransom. The law is tyranical and therefore the law is wrong.

What is it that you consider an injustice? That a person is required to provide support for their child/children.

No, I consider unjust that the Courts knowingly demand fixed set amounts in defiance of the Federal laws to protect the Country's citizens from collection abuse.

Our differences are that I think that if someone brings a child into the world then they are responsible for them until the child/children is/are able to do for themself, you on the other hand don't seem to think this way.

I think our difference is that you approve of deeming the separated parent as guilty with out giving them a real defense, and that you approve of the State and the Courts abuse of separated parents because you believe the slanderous lie that they are all "deadbeats".

I think it is time people take the courage to look at the truth.

 

[404]

Because parents do take care of their own children as they did since Adam and Eve and long before Child Support was ever invented. The State Child Support laws are oppressive and unjust and so that is abuse by the State.



The Court order might be valid but it is unreasonable and it is unjust and the Courts are turning parents that do try to comply into criminals and we have dead broke parents in our modern debtor's prisons with the Courts and the State waiting for the prisoner's families to cough up the ransom. The law is tyranical and therefore the law is wrong.



No, I consider unjust that the Courts knowingly demand fixed set amounts in defiance of the Federal laws to protect the Country's citizens from collection abuse.



I think our difference is that you approve of deeming the separated parent as guilty with out giving them a real defense, and that you approve of the State and the Courts abuse of separated parents because you believe the slanderous lie that they are all "deadbeats".

I think it is time people take the courage to look at the truth.

James, I like you sir. I would like you better buried up to your neck in front of an ant hill but that's another story.

Keep preaching sir, the truth will set us all free.

 

[ylexot]

Because parents do take care of their own children as they did since Adam and Eve and long before Child Support was ever invented. The State Child Support laws are oppressive and unjust and so that is abuse by the State.

The reason the law exists is because parents are not taking care of their children.

The Court order might be valid but it is unreasonable and it is unjust and the Courts are turning parents that do try to comply into criminals and we have dead broke parents in our modern debtor's prisons with the Courts and the State waiting for the prisoner's families to cough up the ransom. The law is tyranical and therefore the law is wrong.

No, I consider unjust that the Courts knowingly demand fixed set amounts in defiance of the Federal laws to protect the Country's citizens from collection abuse.

Didn't you just (in your last post) agree that you are wrong and the courts are not acting against the Federal law?

I think it is time people take the courage to look at the truth.

Let us know when you actually figure out the truth.

 

[Ken King]

Because parents do take care of their own children as they did since Adam and Eve and long before Child Support was ever invented. The State Child Support laws are oppressive and unjust and so that is abuse by the State.

They do? I don't think all do or the state would have never had to step-in in the first place. Were you providing child support payments before there was a court order? I was and continued making payments until I obtained legal custody.

The Court order might be valid but it is unreasonable and it is unjust and the Courts are turning parents that do try to comply into criminals and we have dead broke parents in our modern debtor's prisons with the Courts and the State waiting for the prisoner's families to cough up the ransom. The law is tyranical and therefore the law is wrong.

What is unreasonable? There is a well thought out formula, combined salary is taken into account (not just the non-custodial parents) and a host of other items are used to fairly determine what is entitled.

No, I consider unjust that the Courts knowingly demand fixed set amounts in defiance of the Federal laws to protect the Country's citizens from collection abuse.

Cite the law that says support payemnts must be a specific portion of one's salary. I defy you to do that. You keep spreading a lie that it does even when shown that you are wrong. Now cite the law or shut up.

I think our difference is that you approve of deeming the separated parent as guilty with out giving them a real defense, and that you approve of the State and the Courts abuse of separated parents because you believe the slanderous lie that they are all "deadbeats".

I think it is time people take the courage to look at the truth.

What is there to defend? You have a child but want out of the responsibility to provide for the child. There is nothing there to defend.

The truth is that with children come responsibility and if you aren't ready "or man enough" to accept it then you shouldn't have children in the first place.

 

[404]

They do? I don't think all do or the state would have never had to step-in in the first place. Were you providing child support payments before there was a court order? I was and continued making payments until I obtained legal custody.




What is unreasonable? There is a well thought out formula, combined salary is taken into account (not just the non-custodial parents) and a host of other items are used to fairly determine what is entitled.




Cite the law that says support payemnts must be a specific portion of one's salary. I defy you to do that. You keep spreading a lie that it does even when shown that you are wrong. Now cite the law or shut up.




What is there to defend? You have a child but want out of the responsibility to provide for the child. There is nothing there to defend.

The truth is that with children come responsibility and if you aren't ready "or man enough" to accept it then you shouldn't have children in the first place.

King, I am so happy that you finally found your intellectual equal. Keep the good debate coming. You seem the type that loves a challenge.

 

[Ken King]

King, I am so happy that you finally found your intellectual equal. Keep the good debate coming. You seem the type that loves a challenge.

Kizzy

 

[2ndAmendment]

Kizzy