Capitol Ideas

By RFSOsInRevolt

January 27, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this

It’s not going to matter too much to me personally because the criminal Georgia legislators are about to bring their pitchforks and torches to force me from my stable job (and home) and ban me from working just about anywhere. That is because I am listed on the Georgia Former SEX OFFENDER!!! Registry and after a decade of lawful living and fully completing my legal sentence years ago, I have suddenly and inexplicably become a danger to children at bus stops. Never mind that they are hardly ever there and when they are they should be supervised 100% of the time. Why would we hold parents accountable for their children when we can force Registrants from living or working near the bus stops and then obviously their children will no longer be in danger nor require any supervision? The parents can then just go about their days and not worry about them, as usual.

It is going to be very difficult to find work and since the idiot legislators will truly be to blame for that problem I intend to let the state support me. Therefore I expect that my current child support payments, which are well over $10K a year, will go way, way down to nearly nothing. I’m looking forward to that. I doubt that my ex will appreciate it much. Not working will also give me plenty of free time to hang around the banned areas.

The answer to the question though for people who are actually allowed to work, is that the custodial parent should pay more. Because the children are everything and it is a privilege to live with them. I offered to my ex to take my children with no child support but of course she declined. Why would you take that offer when you can have the children AND thousands of dollars? That would be great.

Anyway, find out more about the immoral, criminal legislators here or e-mail me. Peace (for now).

By Elizabeth Guerra

January 27, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this

The non-custodial parent should pay more money because not only does the custodial parent have to work as the court will never give her enough money to be a stay-at-home mom, but she has to be the child’s full-time caretaker, and assist the child with his homework plus take the child to the doctor, to school and to all other activities. This new legislation will cut the child support of higher income non-custodial parents, which is ironic in that they have the most money with which to provide. I guess the child only gets to live at the custodial parent’s standard of living and not at the non-custodial’s. That’s not fair to the child. This law is a travestyv for the children.

By Gail

January 30, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this

Any custodial parent that refuses to work should not be cause for the other parent to pay more in child support.

By RG

January 30, 2006 12:29 PM | Link to this

As a divorced custodial parent (many years ago), I received child support that in no way covered all the costs of raising a child. I worked as well. I also paid for child care, football, baseball, wrestling, cheerleading, et al. I never expected my exhusband to foot the bill for every facet or need of their lives- nor did he. I could have benefited from more money, but then, who couldn’t? Today, my son shares joint custody with his exwife (two children) with the children living with their mother. My son pays child support, pays for ALL sports activites (including transportation to and from), field trips, furnishes health and dental insurance, buys most of their clothing and shoes, and furnishes transportation to dentists, etc. His exwife, you ask? Is living with another man, has an illegitimate child, and has not worked ONE day since they split up. Surely this new law cannot be any worse than the present one….BOTH parents need to be fiscally responsible for their children.

By Jay

January 30, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this

I believe that the cost for rearing a child should be split between the parents, independent of how many children there are. If you can’t afford to have several children, don’t! Birth control is cheaper than abortion and abstinence is free. Many non-custodial parents use children of a new relationship as an excuse for not being able to take care of the children of an old one. Advanced planning is key!!!

By Susan

January 30, 2006 01:43 PM | Link to this

I’ve been on both sides of this fence. I’m a divorced mother with custody of my child and receive child support from my ex-husband. I’m also the wife of a man who is the non-custodial father of his daughter and pays child support. I have seen it from several different angles.

When it comes to child support,I see a lot of people form their opinions based solely on their own personal situation. The new law encompasses many more people than just you and that’s what you must remember. My ex-husband makes far less money than I do. It’s really a struggle for him to live a decent life and pay his child support. Now that I’m remarried, I have access to my new husband’s paycheck as well as mine. Together, we have enough without child support.

The new law might take some of my child support money away, but it will be much more fair to my ex-husband. Will I miss the extra money, of course. We both had a child. It’s both of our responsibilities to help raise it and shoulder the cost of doing so.

My new husband’s ex wife once told him (rather hatefully) that his monthly child support didn’t stretch far enough to pay for everything his daughter needed. She believes that she should get a check for every cent that she spends on the child and that all of her money should be HER MONEY.

By Gina

January 30, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this

The one thing some of the custodial parents are forgetting…they are just a custodian for the children’s money. It is not for them to you for their own gain. The housing cost for a child is not the entire mortgage, but the additional bedroom. The transportation cost for a child is not the entire car payment, but a percentage of the costs due to the extra mileage, transporting, etc. And, even if one was a stay-at-home mom during the marriage, it is different if you are divorced. You no longer have that choice! What would a parent do if their spouse died? Go to work! The non-custodial parent has expenses at their house. Some have the children 40-50% of the time. Why should the non-custodial parent pay for expenses at the custodial parent’s home when the children are with the non-custodial parent. A grown person should care for self. The non-custodial parent has only one obligation, the children, not taking care of a grown person who is capable of working.

By ajcnews

January 30, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this

I think the key issue is: time spent with the child. It is not fair for the child to spend all summer with non-custodial parent yet that parent still send in court ordered child support payments. This is what I hope the legislators pay attention to. I love having my daughter over for the summer but when my ex still claims her child support payments I can only pay it with disgust. I fully support our legislators who are pushing for this bill.

PS. Kudos to ^ Susan for understanding.

By JMB

January 30, 2006 04:09 PM | Link to this

I think it is time that Georgia changed its archaic child support laws along with its custody laws to be more in line with the rest of the nation. I truly believe that each parent deserves to have joint physical custody of the child (children) as long as they are both fit parents. If income is equal, then no child support should change hands except for medical expenses or daycare. It is only fair that fathers also be considered to be parents in this day and age and not just ‘monetary providers’. It is a privilege to be a PARENT- mom and dad. Let’s let each parent be the best parent he/she can be by letting them participate as much as possible.

By Donna

January 30, 2006 04:14 PM | Link to this

Both parents are responsible for supporting their children, and both parents incur costs throughout the year whether or not the child is in their custody that day. Child support is not for rent and utilities - it is for the INCREMENTAL amount of food, clothing, activities, education, etc. needed for supporting the CHILD above what the parent would pay to support themselves.

The current system motivates parents to get divorced and seek custody of the child like the immunity necklace on Survivor. The legislature should be encouraging both parents to spend as much time with their children as possible and not rewarding one or the other for having custody.

By M.W.

January 30, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this

The custodial parent by far has the greatest share of responsibility with raising the children so it’s only natural that they receive child support. I am also a custodial parent and while the child support I receive is adequate, I still pay for approx 80% of my child’s expenses with my own paycheck from my job. The new CS law will change that to more like 90% while the NCP’s new CS will account for about 10%. The reason for this is that many expenses have been “omitted” from consideration under the new law. The parenting time adjustment adds even more insult to injury. NCP’s will already be able to pay far less and they will now get an additional discount to boot. Clearly, this isn’t about the children, it’s about the NCP getting out of supporting their own children. Pathetic.

By Batman

January 30, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this

WHY is it that the custodial parent continues to have the greatest responsibility for raising the children??? Why can’t both parents share in the responsibility EQUALLY? The parenting time adjustment is not a DISCOUNT- it simply provides that the money follows the child (or children) wherever the child happens to be. After all, each parent provides the same things to the child- a room, bed, clothing, food, etc. Or perhaps the child should have to sleep on the couch at dad’s house. Women need to get used to the fact that in a divorce, there are 2 households to maintain- not one. In fact, one of the judges on the commission stated it very eloquently- “there just isn’t the same amount of money to go around after a divorce- each parent has his or her own bills for the house, etc”. At least some people around here ‘get it’! I, for one, am glad he is a judge.

By Tracey

January 30, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this

Parents should think twice about getting divorced in the first place. If you choose to split up your family without a good reason, you should have it tough. You should expect to lower your standard of living after a divorce. I see so many women use the system so that they can live off of someone else’s back. I don’t have any sympathy for you at all. Now these women complain that this bill in front of the legislature means they can’t make ends meet… too bad you have to live with the consequences of your actions.

*As rough as it is for you, it was worse on your kid. *

Finally our legislature woke up and smelled the coffee. I do have sympathy for women who escaped an abusive relationship, but I think that is the exception rather than the norm. There should be laws to protect those women and their children, but the law should not motivate people to get divorced like the current system does. These women have 100% of the child support expenses paid by their former spouse, all the tax deductions associated for claiming the children as dependents, plus their own income if they work and then the income of a second spouse when and if they remarry. No wonder these women are fighting the bill.

Time for the gravy train to end and families to stay together!

By Janet

January 30, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this

What is of more concern to me is why noone seems concerned about determining what it actually costs to raise a child in Georgia? And why shouldn’t a custodial parent’s income be considered in determining support? Aren’t both parents legally required to provide shelter, food, clothing, education and medical care to their children? So why then, when one or both parents decide that splitting up the marital home is their only alternative, should one parent, be held responsible for supporting the children?

Some men may be absentee or “dead beat” dads, but many men would love the opportunity to see their children more and be allowed to be an integral part of their lives and many men do just that. If the children are spending 30 to 40% of their time in the Dad’s house, being fed, clothed and cared for, why then, should Dad also be expected to foot the bill for most, if not all of their living expenses at their mother’s house too? This is not about who caused the divorce (statistics show that most of the time it is the woman who files for divorce, not the man), it is about the dollars and cents of caring for the children.

Men are restricted in their ability to be parents by a system which limits the time they are allotted to see their children, reducing them to a “visitor” instead of a parent. Up to 50% of a man’s take-home-pay can be garnished to pay child support, none of which is tax deductible. The custodial parent receives this income completely tax-free and then also receives the tax deduction for each child. This means that the non-custodial parent, in many cases, is fully supporting his children without any financial contribution from the mother and he must maintain a home large enough for his children during his allotted visitation, in effect, supporting two households.

Children win when both parents are held financially responsible for them and both parents are allowed to be parents and have equal time with them and equal involvement in their lives. Children win when fathers are considered to be equally as important as mothers. Children win when they are no longer “financial prizes” to be fought over during a divorce because gaining custody of them means gaining a monthly paycheck.

By CaSandra Minichiello

January 30, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this

M.W.

Are you sure your reading HB 221 and SB 382? They both account for additional expenses, those have not been omitted. Also, the table that has been recommended by the commission, is the HIGHEST table in the country and no other state in the nation, uses the type of table we will have in July 1, 2006. Regardless, the parent who makes the MOST MONEY should be responsible for the larger portion of child support. If the family were still intact, this would be the case. If mom is earning 65% of the combined gross income of mom and dad, than that should be her share of the child support. People also need to keep in mind that only the custodial parent can claim the income tax benefits/credits, so in addition to child support which is tax free, they are also able to get the tax credits from Uncle Sam. If the custodial parent cannot survive off of their job and child support, then allow the NCP to raise the children. Its that simple. Many of us would gladly take over those responsibilities and wouldn’t expect a dime in child support.

By Sandy

January 30, 2006 04:57 PM | Link to this

Imagine, paying a third of your take-home-pay in child support, in addition to supporting yourself and having your children arrive for visitation in ragged,dirty, thrift-store clothing, with long, dirty hair, untreated illnesses, and no coats in the winter. You love your kids, so you want them to be provided for, but the state has determined that their mother, who does not work, and lives off of the childsupport and what her boyfriend provides for their illegitimate child, is the proper caretaker for the children.

So under penalty of jailtime, you must give the money to the children’s mother so she can pay her rent and feed and clothe herself and then, you spend money on clothing, jackets, hair cuts, etc. so your children are properly cared for. This is what it’s like to be non-custodial parent in some situations. In a situation like this, it would be to the BENEFIT of the children if the non-custodial parent could direct more of their money to the CHILDREN instead of the custodial parent.

By Joe M.

January 30, 2006 04:59 PM | Link to this

Why should I pay hidden alimony in the form of child support when I was never married?

Why should Georgia not pass laws that bring the state into the 21st century? (The law in Georgia is about to change for the first time since 1989) I guess GA wants to still be considered a welfare state.

35 or more of the States in the U.S. already use the Income Shares model. Why shouldn’t GA? Plus they are using the higher amount by comibining both economic studies done regarding child support.

Finally Georgia will be in line with most of the rest of the country.

Now it’s on to allowing NCP’s more time with their children instead of being a donor and checkbook.

Any questions?

By RG

January 30, 2006 05:08 PM | Link to this

Amen to Sandy’s comments (sounds like our family’s situation)- however, the percentage of child support mandated comes from gross income (before taxes, insurance, et al), not net - which makes it even more obscene (especially when ex-wife refuses to work). Then take what is left, try and live on that, and then provide for the children that you are already providing for (or so you thought).

By Sherry Decker

January 30, 2006 05:30 PM | Link to this

I am a custodial parent who returns 30% of my children’s child support back to my ex-husband so that our children can enjoy the same privileges with their father. The CS guidelines are out of line as compared to the other states. I believe that our children deserve to have the same privileges with their father as they do with me. The child support money is used for their expenses including memberships for activities that they enjoy with their Dad, and even exclude me from access to those memberships.

Fathers have been denied equal justice and protection under the law. They have been denied thier equal rights and access to their children as guarenteed by the Constitution. How can a father expect to be an effective parent with just every other weekend and a fews days here and there. Children deserve meaningful time with both parents and one parent should not have control of another parent’s time with their child.

I am saddened by the lack of vision for our children as the laws continue to tie parenting to financial support. BOTH parents should have an equitable financial responsibility for their children. Child support is for the children 365 days and the NCP should have a parenting time adjustment starting at day 1, otherwise the CS is being used for expenses other than the child. There should be some accountability for what CS is used and “a new dress for Mom” shouldn’t be considered a child support expense.

The legislators are trying to pass a fair and equitable laws for our families. The law will not be fair until fathers are given equal time with their children and and the finacial resources to support them.

By Pete

January 31, 2006 08:53 AM | Link to this

Child support is based on 365 days a year. The custodial parent rarely has the child for 365 days. The custodial parent is complaining they are going to loose money. WELL it’s not your money to start with. It’s for the children. You get all the tax breaks, deductions, head of house hold, and some get earned income credit, so that’s more added monthly income that custodial parents get. HB 221 and SB 382 are making sure the money follows the children. Non custodial parent furnishes the needs at two homes. The custodial parent does not. If you can not afford to raise your child then sign custody over to the non custodial parent, I know I could raise my son with out child support.

Custodial parents also complaining it’s a burden to take their children to school, drs, dentist, after school activities, help with homework. Well let the non custodial parent help and be involved. The ones complaining are the ones who fault for sole custody and the responsibilities. Now you are making it look like the non custodial parent does not want to help. Well you got what you wanted so stop complaining. If the children are such a burden then sign custody over to the non custody parent. You also need to be contacting your Senators and Representatives to make law a Joint Physical Custody/Shared Parenting bill this will take some of the burden off your shoulders of raising your children.

By Mike

January 31, 2006 09:10 AM | Link to this

It is my sincerest hope that one day no Father will have to hear his daughter say, ‘but I have to stay with mommy, she needs the Child Support’. Making both parents financially responsible for their children make common since; its time is long overdue in this State.

By Rick

January 31, 2006 09:19 AM | Link to this

In answer to the question, who should pay more, it depends.

Income shares uses a weighted average of both parents’ incomes, ability to pay, and time the child spends at each home. The parent that ‘pays more’ should be the parent that can afford to.

Let us not forget that Child Support is not a punitive award. It is there to ensure that the child’s needs are covered 365 days/year starting on Jan 1 and ending on Dec 31 of any given year.

By Lee Ann

January 31, 2006 09:57 AM | Link to this

I agree with many of the above posters, who say that child support should be shared equally between the two parents. My husband’s ex-wife claims only a portion of her income as a house cleaner and still gets to claim their daughter on her taxes. She pays no rent as she splits time between living with her 80-something year old grandmother and her 60-something year old boyfriend. My husband wants to help, but she makes it impossible and doesn’t tell him things like when their daughter is sick and tries to limit his time with her, especially since a portion of her child support could be at stake if we have the child more than the allotted every other weekend. She makes him out to be a terrible dad, although his daughter loves him and loves to be with us. I’m going to have a baby in a few month and my step-daughter couldn’t be more excited, but my husband’s ex tries to make it out like this is too traumatic for her to deal with.

We would happily take more time with his daughter and have repeatedly asked for it, not in an attempt to lower his support, but because he genuinely misses her when she’s not with him. Her grades have also fallen off tremendously this year, and his ex tries to blame that on us as well, saying its his fault for not spending his entire time with her studying.

Anyway, the current system doesn’t hold her at all accountable for footing the bill for their child and I’m not sure how much the new one will help either, but I’m sure it will provide some relief.

By Carl

January 31, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this

Who should pay more? Let’s see, if time and incomes are both 50/50, who should pay more? Most would think no money should change hands. It should not be a question of who should pay more; that is purely about what is best for parents.

Children deserve to be provided for 365 days per year. If it is a need, then both parents ought to share the financial burden of providing for that need. At minimum, children deserve food, clothing, shelter, and transportation, regardless of which parent they happen to be with at any given time. Unfortunately, GA’s child support guidelines do not account for such needs. That is embarrassing. Georgia’s children deserve better.

By Meredith

January 31, 2006 10:23 AM | Link to this

I believe that it just makes good sense that the child support money should follow the children. The non-custodial parents who are really involved in their childrens lives and spend a lot of time with the kids, should be able to have the opportunity to spend a portion of the “child support” on the kids as they see fit. As a woman, I find it a bit insulting that so many women have such an “entitled” attitude. It’s “child support”, both parents should be financially responsible for the kids…if the Judge wants to award alimony, then fine, just call it that.

By M.W.

January 31, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this

Many have stated that they should not have to pay “hidden alimony” and they see child support as just that. A possible solution to this is to 1)reduce the child support obligation which is already in the works and 2)bring back alimony which has substantially faded in recent years. This should appease both sides. Child support will be lower, however, the CP will have alimony inorder to keep a roof over the children’s head.

By Scott

January 31, 2006 10:38 AM | Link to this

Income shares is a much needed change to the old child support laws in Georgia. The old laws were antiquated and have not been reviewed since they first went into effect.

Both parents have a responsibility for the financial, as well as emotional, upbringing of their children. The obligation should be weighted based upon their income as well as the amount of time that the children are with them. The one-sided approach has been unfair and introduces more harm than good.

I, myself, have joint-custody with my ex-wife but the children are with me more than they are with her yet I still pay a very large percentage of my gross income to her. Income shares will help correct this to make the payments more in line with the reality of the care and support needs of the kids.

By Corey Jones

January 31, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this

Why is every CP saying their money will decrease. Child support is for the children not the parent. How can you say the CP does all the grunt work if the child is not at their house all the time. I have my son during the week and I am very involved in all of his activities. I do not depend on mom for the information. I get it myself. Also, there will not be any credits only “adjustments” for the time and money spent while the NCP has the child(ren). It is a rediculous comment to say the NCP will get a credit. NCP’s should not be payning for all the exspenses for both residents. NCP’s do just as much work, when they are allowed to see their kids, as CP’s. In a logical world parents would split al costs and time 50/50.
We need to try and remember a child needs both parents in their lives even if the parents do not get along. This should be about the kids not mom’s money and not wanting to work.

By Steve

January 31, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this

Why shouldn’t the calculations take both incomes into consideration? Women are working and have careers just like men do. Women say they want equality, but feel that the NCP (86% men) should bear the entire cost of raising their children. All this law does is divide the cost proportionately by the amount each parent makes. If a NCP has their kids 25-50% of the time, why should they not pay less, since they are supporting the kids during the time they have the child. However, they should live up to that obligation. The tables recommended by the commission are among the highest in the nation. CP’s in Georgia should lining up to support this law. If they are not, maybe they are being paid too much.

By chris

January 31, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this

I think if it takes two people to make a child it should take two people to raise a child. That being said, there is no such thing as a custodial parent. Under GOD both parents equally share responsibility to the child so the time and money should be equally considered. If both parents show that they will take care of the child, both should have equal custody and there should be no consideration of who makes more money. The only consideration should be for who has more expenses independant of who makes how much because Child Support is just that, covering the childs expenses, not evening the playing field no matter how little are hard you work.

By chris

January 31, 2006 11:57 AM | Link to this

Child Support is seen as a cash prize instead of actually covering the childs expenses. I wouldn’t mind giving my whole paycheck if the custodial parent would provide proof that the entire amount is covering HALF of the childrens expenses. Of course the other half is the custodial parents responsibility. Also, if a Non-custodial parent has the children almost as much as the custodial parent, then nobody should pay child support. Why pay one parent Child Support when your also equally supporting the child?

If you have the child 40 percent of the time and the other parent has the child 60 percent of the time and the expenses are the same (which they almost always are) then you should only pay the difference between your costs of the child(ren) and the other parent’s cost. Its just that simple. The problem comes in when, just like I said at the beginning, when child support is seen as a cash reward.

That’s why people don’t want to use plain simple logic when it comes to the care of children.

By Rick

January 31, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this

Carlos,

I think that you’ve asked the wrong question for this Blog. The question, Who should pay more child support — the parent who has custody or the one who doesn’t? can only be answered with the one who has the means to. Your question is parent focused and should be child focused. A better question would be, Do you agree that any child in Georgia should be seamlessly provided for every day of the year, regardless of where they live? Georgia courts have refused to force parents to cooperate by ordering Joint Physical Custody of the children of divorce assuming that both parents are fit. Until that day comes, and I can only hope it does, Child Support will be nothing more than an ordered redistribution of wealth.

By Mom & Stepmom

January 31, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this

The “Women of the Senateâ€? should be ashamed of themselves! Since when does being a mother mean “master of grunt work”? It is insulting to think mothers receive no enjoyment from homework, dance lessons and baseball practice. Women who think they are entitled to cash in exchange for what they perceive as “grunt work” absolutely sicken me.

Child support is NOT about mothers or fathers, it is about children. The money should follow the child. Child support is not intended to buy you a bigger house or car; it is intended to take care of the needs of the children. Women who think of child support as “their money” should be ashamed of themselves.

Children have needs when they are at the home of the non custodial parent, and it is about time we recognize this do something about it!

By Angelica

January 31, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this

Being a “custodial parent” of a 6 month old, I am currently in the child support process.

I do wholeheartedly agree that both parents’ incomes should be taken into account. I do also fully agree that both parents should have equal time/rights and accessibility to their children. Child support is indeed intended for the child’s benefit.

But what about the NCP’s that DON’T want to be with their children or help to FAIRLY financially provide for them? And when I say “fairly”, I mean, I would’ve been more than happy with $100.00 a month. Heck, I would have been MORE ecstatic if my son’s father would even come around to see him, money or not.

I’m in my early 30’s, I work every day, pay my taxes, and am NOT on any type of public assistance. Nor do I have several illegitimate children with several different men and think of my son as a “cash cow”. As I said before, I do believe the CP system needs to be changed, and I have seen plenty of sad situations on both ends. I’ve seen single moms AND single dads struggle to raise their kids with little to no help from the NCP, and I’ve seen many a trailer-trash CP try to milk it for everything it’s worth, and are too busy spending the child support money on getting pedicures or buying unicorn decor for their Section 8 Housing, rather than on their children.

I suppose my bone of contention is that although the income requirements and CP determination should definitely be updated and made more fair for those who actually want the best for their children, I think revisions should also be made, as well, for the deadbeat NCP’s (and those include deadbeat moms as well as dads, too) who refuse to be any part of their children’s upbringing, be it emotional or financial.

On a more personal note, kudos to all the NCP’s out there who wholeheartedly support their children and do the one thing that matters the most: you actually spend time with them and show them your unconditional love. It’s a real shame that people can’t be more like that these days.

By Susan P

January 31, 2006 01:26 PM | Link to this

It is unfortunate that some dads earn the term “Deadbeat Dad” by their own actions. It also a shame to see women using their children’s child support as their extra income. Not all parents are like that though. They are the exception and not the rule. The new law is for the majority of people that do as they are expected every day.

The only thing that I see as a potential problem with this is that some people are going to have to find extra income to help pay bills that have long been paid with the child support money.

By Joe M.

January 31, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this

Angelica - Nicely written!

By CS NOT Alimony

January 31, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this

The current Guideline serves NO BEST INTEREST FOR THE CHILDREN, it is serving the Best Interest of the Custodial Parents. It is about designing a system to redistributing wealth, to treat NCP purely as a source of revenue, giving NCP no rights, depriving the children of NCP’s access, visitation. It is NOT about children. As a product of the current guideline (before SB 382), we as NCP, have a child that only cost $1500 month but the CS award is skyrocketing to $3200/m. The Mother is supposed to CS money at least to pay her portion of the private school expenses since it is in the Order that she should do so and it is in the best interest of the child. But CP, entrusted of a Child Support exceeding 2.5 times of what the child real expenses are, had an unpaid balance of $4000-6000 Child school bill at any given moment. If CP cannot be trusted to act in the best interest of the child, why does the law endorce the hidden alimony?

Secondly, I do not see any reason to support stay-at-home mom mentality. I am raised by two professional parents. They have raised 3 wonderful children who all graduated from the top universities and have become successful in their professions. In my own life experience, I don’t see any stay-at-home mom necessarily leads to succcess raising a child. To the contrary, a child who are raised by professional parents who have always applied themselves in life, tend to benefit from the work ethics of both parents and understand the value of self-reliance. The child will have better role models when they are growing up.

By CPT Tom Noble

January 31, 2006 03:39 PM | Link to this

Good comments Angelica and Sherry Decker. I applaud Georgia for finally coming out of the dark and making raising our children an equal responsibility in all aspects regarding finances. It’s been along time and I for one am happy to see it finally here. Raising children is expensive, but its not the sole responsibility of the NCP but a joint effort in doing what’s right for the child. The next step would be towards establishing joint custody as the norm in Georgia for all child custody cases and allowing all parents, whether CPs or NCPs the right to be there for their children together equally.

By Carl

January 31, 2006 04:43 PM | Link to this

Mr. Campos:

Here is a question for the good ladies of the Georgia Senate - Do they understand that making provisions for children 12 months out of the year (365 days) is providing more support than 8 months out of the year (245 days)? Why on earth would anyone promote leaving kids in the lurch for 120 says out of the year?

Sorry, I guess that’s two questions.

By BA

January 31, 2006 05:05 PM | Link to this

I, a single father, do the following:

Cook, clean, do laundry, take care of my sick daughter, change diapers, make breakfast, lunch and dinner, get up in the middle of the night when she is thirsty or scared, and countless other things that contribute to a healthy child.

I guess by Senator Unterman’s comments in the Senate those are the fun things Father’s do with their children.

Senator Unterman, please let me know when you will be sponsoring the Shared Parenting Initiative in Georgia. I would like to stop having fun with my child and become more than a visitor in her life.

By LadyEngineer

February 1, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this

Renee Unterman is just mad because she is going through a divorce and feels entitled because she is a woman. Her soon to be ex-husband is probably the primary caregiver anyway.

Senator Unterman is just a plant for the Women’s Policy Group and the anti-father brigade.

By Philip Adams

February 1, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this

The theory that both parents incomes and time spent with the child is sound economically. Parents are equally responsible for their children mentally, physically, emotionally, and fiscally. There has been a bias for far too long that one parent (usually the father) is 100% responsible for all fiscal responsibility and the other (usually mother) for all emotional, mental and physical responsibility. With the changes over the last 50 years in womens equality and women joining the workforce both mothers and fathers raise their children. In the case of a divorce we are still in the 1950’s believing that mother is at home and rearing the children by herself. Perhaps after Renee Unterman’s comments of last week she would be willing to share the “grunt work” equally between both mother and father and sponsor a bill for a presumtion of joint legal and physical custody. If that were the case both parents would remain involved in their children’s lives and their children would grow up healthier and happier knowing that both mother and father took an active part in their lives. Children both want and need to have relationship with both mother and father. If that becomes the case, many of the societal issues and issues of child support would diminish.

By Bill

February 2, 2006 08:43 AM | Link to this

Child support should be based on both parents income, and there should be a quick and easy way to re-evaluate it when one parent’s income changes. And if the noncustodial parent provides the medical insurance coverage for the child or children, that cost should be added in as part of his or her contribution.

By M

February 2, 2006 10:42 AM | Link to this

The system should look at each case independently. The mother is not always the best parent and the law should look at both parents and take in consideration what has each parent done. I personally know a situation where the child who is now nine. The child lived with the father full time early on; however sometimes out of a seven-day week the child would stay with its mother two of those days of the week. The father never filed for custody because the mother would make threats that because she was the mother she would win and Georgia favors the mother and she would make it hard for him if he did because she would show he had not paid child support to her. Even when our response was why should he if he is the one with the child and school records, receipts, neighbors and everything can show the child was not living with you. She would say well I have checked with a lawyer and the state of Georgia favors the mother. For the past five years the child has lived with the father all seven days of the week. During this time the mother sometimes would not even call to check on her child for weeks or even an entire month or more.

Out of nine years the mother has filed the child on her income taxes all nine years with the exception of one year, although the child did not live with her.

I would like to know why there are not laws in place now to protect even the fathers who are taking care of their children. If anyone who reads this knows of any organizations that helps fathers please list them in the post.

By Julie Batson

February 2, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this

www.gachildsupport.org

We are trying to help fathers the best that we can!!! :)

By akhenaten21c2

February 6, 2006 10:22 AM | Link to this

Well The ladies in the Senate have made it a little harder for NCP’s to recieve a reduction in child support. I really think thats bad. I am a recently divorced father with one child who is 11 years old. During my divorce, a fought for custudy of my son. (Lost because other than the fact that I think I am the better parent, there was no overwhelming evidence to seperate the mother and child). Even during my marriage of 11 years, anyone outside of the relationship could see who the primary care giver was. I took my son to school and picked him. I helped him with his homework. In her defense, his mother worked the grave yard shift for the first three years of our childs life. So I had to do it. It wasnt a problem either. My sons first words were dada, and I was there when he took his first steps, not his mother. Once she was transferred to daytime hours, the schedule remained the same. I took him to school ad picked him, and cooked dinner for all. Oh yea, I did this while also raising her first born son ( not mine). It was interesting to watch her relate to her first borns father. He had his son EVERY weekend from the time I met her ( child was 7) until the boy decided he didnt want to go with his father anymore( he didnt like it because he was away from his friends ) I mention all of this because during my divorce when I asked to have my son every weekend, I was denied by her and the Judge. During my forced single life I have had to keep up with a lot more things. Example, this year alone, my ex wife has not kept my son for a single weekend! My son has spent the off weekends at his grandmothers( he and I talk alot). His mother didnt stay. So if you dont want him, why cant I have him? $10,000 dolllars a year thats why. I see my son the 1st 3rd and 5th weekends of the month. I also pick him up twice a week from school ( which I had no say in) and get to spend a few hours with him. Generally until 8 o’clock. During this time I must ensure homework gets done and feed him. In a 30 DAY MONTH during school he attends 20 days of classes, right? She takes him to school every day but I pick him up at least 12 out of 20 days. And those days include a meal. Wow, does she have it made. But the new law doesnt count that time. I must have the child for at least 12 hours for it count as a day. Forget the fact that his school is not near and I have to feed him. Gas is free for NCP’s right? So is food. None of that counts under new Georgia law. And what about the six weeks during the summer? CP’s still need the money when the child is gone? Its not all fun time with DAD. DAD his monster debt as a result of 2 incomes turning into one, increase heating and fuel costs. My car hasnt been tuned up in 2 years because I cant afford it. Movies and amusement parks? My son and I havent been since I got divorced. The States child support laws dont even conside my cost of living. Shouldnt my son deserve the same at my house as at his mothers? My poor boy has been complaining lately about how could it is in my house. The heater is set on 58 degrees. Even at the low setting , my bill for december was 252.00. Devestating to my budget. I make 2250 every 2 weeks. After taxes and all I have 1400 left. After child support I have 1000. After house note ( which comes out each pay cycle, so i wont be late) I have 400 dollars. So I need to pay for the phone, power, gas, cable(basic),car insurance, cell phone ( because car my break)PLUS all the creditors that I may or may not be able to pay on a regular basis. Yea I guess I am one the deadbeat dads huh. My ex has a new BMW, nice clothes, new stuff. I guess If you had 10000 tax free dollars a year you’d be living large too!!! Oh yeah, no tax break on Federal level or State for the 10000 I never see. No claiming the child on my tax return( I ought to be able to do that since I actually pay)Plus it just suxs, because I want my son, and his mommie just views him as a cash cow. This is based on observing her relationship with previous guy, sometimes he paid, sometimes not, but he had his son whenever he wanted. Not true for me. I am glad the laws were changed but it should be a case by case adjustment to include the debt incurred as a married entity and the cost of operating both homes.