In the United States, child support is an ongoing obligation for periodic payments made directly or indirectly by "obligor" (or paying parent or payer) to " Obligee " (or accept party or recipient) for financial care and child support of a relationship or marriage (possibly terminated). The laws governing such obligations vary dramatically by states and tribes among Native Americans. Each federally recognized state and tribe is responsible for developing its own guidelines for determining child support.
Usually obligors are non-custodial parents. Usually a bondee is a custodian parent, a caregiver or guardian, or a government agency, and does not need to spend money on the child. In the US, there is no gender requirement for child support; for example, a father can pay a mother or mother to pay dad. In addition, where there is shared custody, where a child has two custodial parents and a non-custodial parent, the custodial parent may be required to pay another custodial parent.
Historically, a child's right to parental support is governed only by separate states, territories, and Indian tribes. The United States federal government was involved in providing welfare assistance to impoverished children in 1935 through the Help for Families with Dependent Children program. In turn, the federal government recognizes that many children enter the program because parents without custody often avoid their fair share of the costs of raising their children, and begin to develop a thorough federal framework foundation for the enforcement of child support.
Today, the federal child support enforcement program is the responsibility of the Child Support Enforcement Office, an Office of Administration for Children and Families in the Department of Health and Human Services. The federal regulations passed in accordance with Title IV-D of the Social Security Act require a uniform application of child support guidance across the state, but each state may define its own method of calculating support. At a minimum, 45 C.F.R. 302.56 requires each state to create and issue Guidelines alleged (but correct) true, and review the guidelines, at least, every four years. Therefore most countries adopt their own "Child Support Support Sheets" which the local courts and the Office of Child Enforcement Support are used to determine "child support" calculations in the state. The court may choose to deviate from the calculation of this standard in certain cases. The US has reciprocal agreements with a number of countries on the recovery of child support and is part of the Hague Maintenance Convention 2007.
Video Child support in the United States
Support model
The State follows one of three basic models, or formulas, to calculate the child support obligations: (1) the Stock Revenue model, (2) Percentage of Income model, or (3) Formula Melson model.
- The Earnings Distribution Model asserts that small children should receive the same amount of parental support as if the parent lives together. This model calculates support as part of the estimated income of each parent that should be devoted to the child in a shared household. Calculations vary by country but basically increase the income of both parents. The amount required to support each child is then determined using the basic parameters and then adjusted according to the specific case and varies by country. Finally, the support obligation is pro-rata between the parents depending on their share of total income. In other words, if the child custodian parent earns $ 2,000 per month and the parent without custody earns $ 3,000, the parent without custody assumes 60% of the support obligation.
- The Percentage of Earnings model calculates support as a percentage of parental earnings without custody. This model assumes that the support of the custodian parent is fully spent on the child. The amount of support is adjusted as in the previous model. (Note: The districts of Columbia and Massachusetts apply the combined formula, from Share Income and Percentage of Earnings model.)
- The Melson formula is a more complex version of the Share Revenue model. One special feature is the Life Adjustment Standards (SOLA), which automatically allows the child to share in increased parent or parental income. This is a six-step process that takes into consideration the needs of children's primary support, child care and remarkable medical expenses, and SOLA. This amount is added together, and then the court looks at the minimal support needs of each person and the percentage of total net income to determine the support obligation. The formula is named for Judge Elwood F. Melson, Jr. from the Delaware Family Court, which developed formulas in the 1970s and 1980s.
Maps Child support in the United States
Concerns of the executive branch
President Gerald R. Ford issued the Signing Statement at the signing of the 1974 Social Services Amendment on January 4, 1975. While generally profitable, Ford expressed concern about what it sees as too "injecting the Federal Government into domestic relations".
Status under country conditions
Penalty
In 2000, the state of Tennessee revoked a driver's license from 1,372 people who collectively had more than $ 13 million in child support. In Texas, parents who are not in power behind more than three months in child benefit payments may request payment ordered court reduced from their salary, can have federal income tax returns, lottery winnings, or other money that may come from federal state or sources. intercepted by a child support enforcement agency, may have a license (including hunting and fishing permits) suspended, and judges may punish parents who do not pay to jail and include assessments for past child support. Some have taken the view that the punishment is unconstitutional. On September 4, 1998, the Supreme Court of Alaska upheld a law enabling state agencies to withdraw driver licenses from parents who are seriously in arrears in child support obligations. And in the case of the United States v. Sage , the US Court of Appeal (2nd Cir., 1996), the court upheld the constitutionality of a law allowing a federal fine and up to two years in jail for a person who deliberately failed to pay more than $ 5,000 for a child's allowance for one year or more when the child lives in a different country than an uninvolved parent.
The US law generally known as the Bradley Amendment was adopted in 1986 to automatically trigger a lien that does not expire whenever child support becomes overdue. The law overrides any state restriction laws; does not allow the court's discretion, even from a bankrupt judge; and requires that the amount of payments be maintained regardless of the physical ability of a person who has a child allowance ( obligor ) to make a notice or pay attention to their awareness of the need to make a notice. Obligee can forgive the debt.
When child payments overdue are owed to a country as a result of the welfare paid, the free state to forgive some or all of it under what is known as a compromised offer.
Interstate Enforcement
Last judgment
Under the US Constitution Article Four, full conviction and credit will be granted in each state for public acts, records and judicial proceedings of any other country. The Court has used this article to enforce a final verdict that has been registered in the state. Usually the assessment must be final before it can be registered. The "Reissue Conflicts" (Second) , under the topic of Defense for Recognition and Enforcement, states that assessments given in one country need not be recognized or enforced in your country as long as the decision remains subject to modification. Local courts are free to recognize or enforce assessments that are subject to modifications under local law.
Child support orders are considered such an assessment. To meet full confidence and credit, local laws on rendition conditions will be applied to determine whether a decision can be modified - especially in the case of past and future financial liabilities.
Uniform Desertion and Non-Support Act
In 1910, the National Conference of Commissioners on the Uniform State Act adopted the Uniform Desertification and Non-Support Act. The act makes a punishable offense for a husband to leave, intentionally ignoring or refusing to provide support and maintenance of his wife in poor or needy circumstances, or for a parent to fail in the same duty to a child less than 16 years of age. The 1910 Act seeks to enhance enforcement of support tasks, but does not take into account the payers who leave jurisdiction. With the increase in population mobility, welfare departments should support poor families because the extradition process is inefficient and often unsuccessful.
Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA)
In 1950, the National Conference of the Commission on the Law of the Uniform State issued the Uniform Unified Rejection Support Act (URESA). The Commission states that, "The purpose of this act is to improve and expand by mutual laws, enforcement of the duties of support and to create a legal uniform with respect to it." URESA seeks to enforce provisions in two ways: criminal enforcement and civil enforcement. Criminal enforcement depends on a nomad country demanding extradition of obligors, or for obligors to surrender. Civil enforcement depends on the obligee to begin the process in the state. The starting country will determine whether the obligor has a support job. If the initiating court supports the claim, the proceeding court will forward the case to the obligor country. The responding country, having personal jurisdiction over the obligor, shall give notice and trial to the obligor. After this trial, the responding court will enforce the support order.
Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (RURESA)
In 1958, the Uniform Law Commission re-amended URESA, later known as the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (RURESA). The amendment involved two important changes to URESA.
The amendment seeks to correct the problems made by URESA. In some cases, the responding court only has evidence of the obligor and has no evidence of the initiation state or obligee. Courts that respond, with only one side represented tend to benefit the obligor. The Commission's solution is to amend the URESA so that the initiation state and the obligee will provide evidence to the court that responds together with the original case file, so that the responding court will have a position from both parties.
The Commission also provides a second method for obtaining compensation through law enforcement. This new method allows the obligee to register foreign support orders in the obligor state court, and presents the case directly to a foreign court.
RURESA provides new protection for mothers against disobedient fathers; however, RURESA creates a new problem - some support commands. Since each country can enforce and modify the support order, new support orders may be included in each state. So if the father moves from Country A to Country B to Country C to Country D, and if the mother continues to be registered and the order is changed, there will be four separate and independent support orders. RURESA allows state courts to modify the original as long as the court implements its own procedural law and the law of the country of origin, unless it violates its own public policy. The Commission is intended to fix the problem of some inconsistent commands by only allowing support orders to be modified under a single state law. In theory, states A, B, and C can only modify support orders under substantive law of the original state; thus, all support commands should be identical. In practice, however, this rule creates ambiguity as to whether the child support manual is procedural or substantive, and if substantive, is the application of substantive laws in violation of some public policies. The issue of multiple orders remains an issue.
Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA)
In 1992, NCCUSL was completely revised and replaced URESA and RURESA with the UFA Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) to fix multiple order issues. UIFSA fixes this problem by stating that only one country will have the power to create or modify a child support at a time ("resume exclusive jurisdiction"). Countries with continuous exclusive jurisdiction will use their own child support guide. Thus, if a child or one of the parents remains in the country of origin, then the state retains the jurisdiction and only the country can modify the support order. Only if both parents and children leave the state can other countries consider jurisdiction of child support (although any country can enforce the original state of the order, regardless of where the parent or child lives).
In 1996, NCCUSL revised UIFSA and the United States Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Employment Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), which requires all countries to adopt the 1996 version of UIFSA. In 2001, NCCUSL adopted additional amendments to UIFSA. In 2011, only a few countries adopted amendments in 2001.
In 2008 UIFSA was revised to allow the implementation of the Hague Maintenance Convention which ensures a uniform policy among countries and ways to organize child support issues globally. Critically, orders are recognized and enforced among the parties to the Convention. After the federal government made implementation of the 2008 version as a requirement for federal child support system funding, it was adopted in all states. This shall enter into force on 1 January 2017. This Convention shall enter into force in the United States on 1 January 2017.
UIFSA consists of five main sections: General Provisions, Establishment of Support Order, Enforcing Support Order, Modifying Order Support, and Parentage.
Statutory conflict
Each state guide is unique, so each country provides a different amount of money. Between the two states, the difference in the number of prizes can be nominal when taken every week. However, in the long term, this weekly difference accumulates to the amount of material. Conflict legal issues can face the courts.
For simplicity, this article uses a model in which the mother becomes a parent with custody of children and the father makes payments for child support, with the understanding that this model has become less typical. For example, a man and a woman married in West Virginia. During marriage, husband and wife have children. In West Virginia, her husband and wife divorced. West Virginia issued a divorce decision that gave the custody wife of the children and ordered the husband to pay child support. Next, the wife moved to Connecticut with the children. Due to the changing circumstances, the husband, who may or may still be in West Virginia, is seeking modification of the West Virginia divorce decision. Conflict has ended which state guidelines will be applied.
The Commission, formed by Congress in 1988 to recommend `how to improve the establishment of an interstate and enforcement of child support awards, 'supports a system in which the law of modification of jurisdiction will apply. Some witnesses testified that the laws that are most beneficial to children should be regulated, others testify that the law in which the obligors stay should rule, and still others who testify that the law in which the child should be. The Commission ultimately recommends `that procedural and substantive laws of the forum state should regulate in the process of formation and modification, 'citing' the ease and efficiency of local law's application by decision makers' as an important consideration. The official UIFSA comment [to UIFSA 303] echoes this efficiency concern.
Connecting Connecticut anomaly
The Connecticut Legislative anomaly creates two registration methods. Connecticut adopted URESA and adopted the RURESA registration method. Furthermore, Connecticut adopted UIFSA and revoked URESA, but did not revoke the RURESA registration method. Both methods allow foreign orders registered in Connecticut. The UIFSA enrollment method limits jurisdiction to only one state, whereas the RURESA registration is not.
UIFSA Connecticut
The UIFSA enrollment method allows the following scenarios: (1) one party remains in the home country, and the other moves to Connecticut or (2) the mother and father both leave the country of origin. If the mother or father remains in the country of origin, the country of origin retains an ongoing exclusive jurisdiction.
The second scenario is that the mother moved to Connecticut, and the father moved to the third country (state B), leaving no party domiciled in the home country. If the order is registered in Connecticut or in B and the state court issues a new order, then the country of origin loses jurisdiction. In the state where a new order is issued, Connecticut or state B will gain the power to change the order. This situation resulted in a race to the courthouse. The mother wants to register orders in the state with a guide that is more profitable for her and the father seeks the opposite.
Under UIFSA, whatever scenario is implemented, the rules are clear. However, since Connecticut continues to have RURESA registration methods in books, a party can register in Connecticut without begging UIFSA, which creates issues intended to fix UIFSA.
RURESA of Connecticut
Under RURESA Connecticut General Statute 46b-71 controls, providing courts with conflicting legal rules concerning enforcement of foreign marriage decisions within Connecticut. It states:
Such a foreign marriage decision shall be the verdict of the court of this country in which it is filed and shall be upheld and treated in the same manner as the court's decision in this state; provided that the decision of a foreign marriage is not contrary to the public policy of the state of Connecticut. The decision of a proposed foreign marriage must have the same effect and may be enforced or satisfied in the same manner as the judgment of this state court and subject to the same procedure for modifying, altering, altering, emptying, setting aside, leaving or suspending a court decision as a court decision in this state; provided, in modifying, altering, altering, setting aside, vacating, abiding or suspending such foreign marriage decisions in the country the substantive law of foreign jurisdiction shall control.
The law allows the courts to amend foreign judgments using local procedures, applying substantive laws of foreign jurisdiction, except that the application of substantive law would be contrary to Connecticut's public policy.
At Burton v. Burton , the Connecticut Supreme Court admits that 46b-71 is regulated. In addition, the Court stated that the related laws are "substantive" so that foreign law will control. The Connecticut Court has not yet decided whether the courts apply local or foreign child support guides under RURESA. 46b-71 and Burton frame this issue. If the Connecticut court characterizes the child support guidelines as procedural, the court applies the local child support guidelines; if the court characterizes the child support guidelines as substantive, then the court must apply the guidelines for the support of a foreign country child, with regular warnings. The Connecticut Supreme Court addresses the issue of whether the courts properly apply the substantive law of foreign jurisdiction but not whether the foreign guidance is "substantive".
In Evans v. Evans , the High Court of the Connecticut Applicant indirectly addressed the matter and stated that it would not interfere with a dispute resolution order absenteeism of discretionary abuse. Trial trials are held, among other factors, that it is not bound by New York guidelines, although it considers them. The Court of Appeals failed to explicitly state which guidelines should be applied by the court.
The Connecticut High Court is different when the court must determine whether the substantive law includes the country's child support manual. In a recent High Court ruling, Judge Munro stated that "[t] the court would allow the parties to argue at a subsequent session on the benefits of whether, in applying Ohio substantive law, the court looks to the Child Support Guidelines of Connecticut or Ohio Child Support Guides, or some other criteria. "
In the footnotes, Trial Referee Cutsumpas stated that "[t] his court was aware that it would be more practical to have a child support issue specified in the State of Connecticut where children and mother-in-residence and not in New York State where only the father of the obligors is... However, there is no written consent from the parties, UIFSA dictates the jurisdiction which in this case is the State of New York. "
District of Columbia
In 1993, the Columbia District Court of Appeal stated that the child domicile governed which guidelines should be applied. In this case the parents who married in the District and the family moved to Maryland. The divorced father returned to the District, and his mother and children remained in Maryland. The court granted the father's request that the Maryland guidelines apply following precedent while stating that the "government interest analysis test" would lead to the same result.
Parents who died
Non-custodial parents who avoid their child support obligations are sometimes called parents' deadbeats. Parents who share the same role in parenting are much more likely to be obedient, with child support adherence rising above 90% when the payer claims he (or she) believes he has a relatively equal role in parenting.
The US Department of Health and Human Services estimates that 68% of child benefit cases have arrears in arrears in 2003, an increase of 15% from 53% in 1999. It is claimed that some of these cases of cancellation are due to administrative practices such as calculating income to parents where not exists and issues a default support order.
According to one reason the research provided for not paying support is as follows:
According to another study, 76% of the $ 14.4 billion child support allowance in California is by parents who do not have the ability to pay. The "loser" parent has an average annual income of $ 6,349, $ 9,447 in arrears and ongoing support of $ 300 per month because 71% of orders are set by default.
Child support and welfare
Since 1996 the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), the main impetus for the collection of child support is the Welfare legislation. Custodian parents who receive public assistance, for example, through Provisional Aid for Family Assistance (TANF), are required to provide child support to the Welfare Department to receive assistance. Custodian parents should also pursue child support. Each payment is transferred to the welfare program as a partial reimbursement. Usually the amount of child support equals or exceeds grant aid, allowing families to abandon the cash assistance program (potentially remaining eligible for food stamps etc.) Other provisions of PRWORA require and assist custodian parents to find employment (such as buying new work clothes). Child support enforcement programs in all 50 states are primarily federally funded. Countries whose enforcement is not in PRWORA compliance risk 5% penalty.
Despite concerns that this provision generates government revenues, HHS reports that in fiscal 2003, 90% of child support collections went directly to families. In 47 countries, the percentage of payments for families is 86% or more and in seven states exceeds 95%. Half of not paid child support is government property. Sherri Z. Heller, Ed.D, Commissioner of the US Office of Child Support Enforcement states, "We need to be more aggressive in exploiting older debt to the government as an incentive to get more reliable payments from current support to families." Toward this end, the Social Security Administration provides up to $ 4.1 billion of financial incentives for countries that create support and delay orders, and then collect them.
Housing and general wages
Some states (such as California) automatically collect up to 50% of their pre-tax income to pay child support allowances. This can present difficulties in countries whose cost of living is high. The Out of Reach report produced by the National Low Income Housing Coalition provides 30% of household income as an affordable rate for housing costs. After losing 50% of the takehome income, the suggested spending on the lease also decreased by 50%.
California fair market rent (FMR) for two-bedroom apartment is $ 1,149. To pay rent and utilities, without paying more than 30% of revenues for housing, households should earn $ 3,829 per month or $ 45,950 per year. Assuming a standard work schedule, housing alone requires a $ 22.09 wage, well above the minimum of $ 8.00 California. Adding child support basically doubles the required earnings. If the obligor has no other child support debt, get California minimum wage working 40 hours a week, has no benefits, and the custodian pairs are not working, the expected payment is closer to $ 320.
Audit
In many areas, such as the states of Illinois' Cook and Kane, the division audited themselves. However, other jurisdictions adopted different methods - for example, in 2003 an independent auditor reviewed and audited the Child Support Enforcement Agency of Hawaii. Texas has also conducted independent audits. Clark County, Nevada, the county attorney's office was independently audited in 2003 regarding the collection of child support payments. In 2003, Maryland recommended an external audit on five child support enforcement operations.
While regional reports are official records, states also have their reports.
Prison
Most courts handle imprisonment due to a lack of child support since the US Supreme Court ruling in Lassiter vs. the Department of Social Services, 452 U.S 18 (1981) has stated that appointed advisors are required if the obligor's freedom is at stake. In March, 2006, the New Jersey Supreme Court upheld this principle in the case of Anne Pasqua et al. v. Hon. Gerald Council, et al. In August 2006, at least four states (New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and South Carolina) did not consistently appoint lawyers in the law enforcement process. In 2011 a pending court challenge in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire.
On March 23, 2011, the United States Supreme Court heard Turner v. Rogers, a case of whether South Carolina has a legal obligation to provide appointed advice to Turner, is jailed for unpaid child support.
The right to trial the jury was summarized in non-criminal cases when the defendant was charged with minor offenses and received no support. The judge may imprison the obligor for contempt of court for some time, possibly until the balance is brought in at this time, similar to the debtors' prison from an earlier era. Prisons make it difficult for child support payments, which is why some countries suspend punishment and set a probationary period in which payments should be made and/or job searches done, with prisons reserved for uncooperative offenders.
Dad's fraud, not adopted, non- biological
Dad questions that complicate child support issues can be caused by false information, fraudulent intent, or default judgment. Dad's fraud primarily affects four groups of individuals: the deceived party is forced to pay support for a child who is not biologically a child potentially deprived of contact with his biological father, a biological father who may have lost contact with his father. child, and mother of the child.
A non-biological father may be responsible for child support even if the father's deception is proven because some jurisdictions limit the amount of time allowed to challenge the father. In most jurisdictions a court can declare a man who acts as the father of a child to father through a fair estoppel operation. Once a man declares a child his offspring and lives with the child for a certain period of time, the court may assign a father who allegedly all duties as a parent even if the child is not biologically his own.
Criticism
Child support guidelines and policies are now being criticized by advocacy groups for father rights, as well as by feminists advocating gender equality and reproductive options for men.
Child support guidelines and policies are now also criticized for requiring boys and men who are victims of rape to pay child support to women who raped them.
Melanie McCulley, a South Carolina lawyer sparked the term male abortion in 1998, pointed out that a father should be allowed to give up his obligation to an unborn baby early in pregnancy. Proponents argue that this concept begins with the premise that when an unmarried woman becomes pregnant, she has the option of abortion, adoption, or parent; and argues, in the context of gender equality that is legally recognized, that in the early stages of pregnancy, the alleged (supposed) father should have the same human rights to relinquish all parental rights and financial responsibilities in the future - leaving a knowledgeable mother with three the same choice.
McCulley states:
'When a woman determines she is pregnant, she has the freedom to decide whether she has the maturity level to do the responsibilities as a mother, if she is financially able to support a child, if she is in place in her career to take time to have children, or if he has other problems that prevent him from taking the child to retirement. After weighing his options, the woman can choose an abortion. Once he cancels the fetus, the woman's interests and obligations to the child are terminated. In stark contrast, unmarried fathers have no choice. Her responsibility to the child begins at conception and can only be terminated by a woman's decision to abort the fetus or by the mother's decision to give the child for adoption. Thus, he must rely on the decision of women to determine his future. The father who allegedly did not have the luxury, after the fact of conception, to decide that he was not ready to be a father. Unlike women, he has no way out '.
The McCulley male abortion concept aims to equalize the legal status of unmarried men and unmarried women by giving unmarried men legally the ability to 'undo' their rights and obligations to children. If a woman decides to take care of the child, the father may choose not to break all ties legally.
This same concept has been endorsed by former president of the National Women's Organization feminist organization, lawyer Karen DeCrow, who writes that "if a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring pregnancy to the term, and the biological father can not, and can not, share in this decision, he will not be responsible for 21 years of support... autonomous women make independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choices. "
Legal concepts tried in Dubay v. Wells and dismissed. This is not surprising, since laws in the various jurisdictions currently set guidelines for when child benefits are owed and their amount. Thus, legislation would be necessary to change the law to apply the McCulley concept.
See also
- Bradley Amendment
- Overview of the California Child Support Guidelines
- Children Support
- Daddy's
- Debtor Prison
- Glenn Sacks
- Children's Uniform Law Enforcement and Law Enforcement
- Neglect of tax returns
References
External links
Government site
- Up to $ 4.1 billion is available for countries that make support and arrears orders, and then collect (see 6B, 6C, & 6D). Social Security Administration Incentives
- While 40% of children whose fathers live outside the home have no contact with their children, the other 60% have contacts on average 69 days in the past year. US Department of Health and Human Services
- CSE Government Program Report
- Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report on child support
- Office of Child Support Enforcement by states
- "Today, a child support offender can be prosecuted under Federal law" - enforcement of child support
Census
Guidelines and laws
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments