As written to us by one of our members who tracks the workings of the Child Support Advisory Committee pretty closely, this committee will be having a meeting today in Springfield and Chicago, if you have the opportunity to attend and to voice concerns, please feel free to do so.
Let’s keep the pressure on. They need to know that we are not going away; and we are not accepting crap legislation that drains one parent of finances to the point that the parent has little funds to engage in activities that require funds. A child has the right to be able to enjoy activities that cost money when the child is with either parent. Treating Non-custodial parents as ATMs for the Custodial Parent does not serve the child well. And yes, I am aware there are numerous activities that do not cost money, or that costs little; but why should that requirement forced upon the child when the child is with the Non-Custodial parent.
Why is the Non-Custodial parent given no credit for buying school supplies, passes to museums, maintaining a bedroom for the child, buying clothes, toys, bicycles, etc? And when I hear a Non-Custodial parent bring this up, they are hammered with the usual crap, “That is part of being a parent; you do it out of love.” Absolutely, we do. But the burden needs to be shared. Presently, Non-custodial parents are contributing partially to these things when the child is with the Custodial parent. This contribution is in the form of child support. And when the child is with the Non-Custodial parent, the Non-Custodial parent is contributing 100%. Simple math here. And I’ll say it right now, based on what I have seen of family court judges and HFS, the average 3rd grader has a better understanding of math than these individuals. Imputed income is crap; and anything multiplied by zero is zero (except in family court).
Now do not be fooled with talk of “shared income” when you hear CSAC speak it. Yes, they will be looking at both incomes; but they will not be giving credit to the Non-Custodial parent. They can call it “shared income” or whatever they want, but it is nothing more than a label and false advertising. Shared income means that the parents share the obligation. The “shared income” model being proposed does not do that. Simple test, if both parents earn the same amount and each has 50% time with the child, if the “shared income” model is truly shared, then no money would be exchanged between the two (absent insurance, taxes, purchasing items that are truly shared with the child). Question the Dr. Jayne Venohr model. Ask for the algorithms behind the charts (You’re not going to get them.) Ask about the 50/50 cases. Ask about the high income and low income earner cases. Ask about the 40% cliff. Make them think.
Here are the details for the meeting. Hope to see you there. Pass on the word.
Monday, Sept 10, 2012 at 1:30 – 3:30 PM
401 South Clinton
7th floor, Video Conference Room
Chicago, IL 60601
509 South 6th Street
5th Floor Video Conference Room
Springfield, IL 62701