Interstate Child Support Guidelines
did FASR and PSI know, and when did they stop knowing it?
Jim Untershine, GZS of LB, 10-08-02
California has the most outrageous child support guideline in the nation demanding 25% of a parent's net income for 1 child, 40% for 2, and 50% for 3.
Using the child support calculators, provided by AllLaw.com, the amount of child support demanded by all states can be compared by choosing a hypothetical case. The case that follows is identical to "Case D" described in the US House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, GREENBOOK in support of the interstate child support guidelines (Table 8-2) reported by Pirog, Klotz, and Buyers from the Institute of Family and Social Responsibility (FASR)
NCP earns $4,400 / month net income, pays $30 / month union dues, and pays $25 / month for health insurance.
CP earns $1,760 / month net income, pays $150 / month childcare. and has 100% custody of 2 children.
Figure One shows the child support guidelines for 1, 2, and 3 children using the child support calculator from AllLaw.com using only the incomes from "Case D" described above. (You must pay to find out how much you will owe in Vermont and New Hampshire, which eliminates these states from this analysis).
Across all states the median guidelines where: 1 child (16%), 2 child (24%) and 3 child (29%)
Across all states the highest guidelines where: Massachusetts 1 child (31%), California 2 child (40%) and California 3 child (50%)
Across all states the lowest guidelines where: North Carolina 1 child (10%), Wyoming 2 child (16%) and North Carolina 3 child (18%)
Figure Two shows the 2 child guideline presented to the Ways and Means Committee by FASR using all details outlined in "Case D" described above. The AllLaw.com 2 child guideline is subtracted from the FASR 2 child guideline to determine the error between them. For example: FASR reported California demanding 18% of an NCPs net income for 2 children while AllLaw.com reported 40%, yielding an error of 22%.
Across all states the median error was 11%
Across all states the highest error was California (22%) with the lowest error Wyoming (4%)
According to FASR, the state of Indiana has the highest 2 child guideline (20%) with Oklahoma having the lowest (9%).
FASR is based out of the University of Indiana at Bloomington and is paid by the federal government to be the clearinghouse for Child Support Enforcement (CSE) statistics.
Child support guidelines vary from state to state, and are derived by many strange and disturbing methods. Rest assured that there is no scientific approach that is currently used that is not derived from opinions from people who are in no position to know the truth. There is no system by which actual data is collected to measure the cost of raising children.
Many states require assistance in determining the amount of child support that they will force a parent to pay. There are companies and individuals that offer to help states maximize the profits that are paid by parents and the federal government in implementing their "Family Law money machine". For example Maurine Pirog-Good of FASR (Bloomington, IN) has helped Alaska with their child support guideline, while Robert Williams of Policy Studies Inc (PSI) (Denver, CO) has helped 49 states, Canada, Australia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
These independent entities are free to
Instruct states that it is essential to maximize the cash flow between parents in order to reap false profits from parents and the federal government.
Actively engage in subverting the federal laws that provide protection to NCPs and advising the elimination of due process in implementing a child support guideline that limits rebuttabillity to winning custody of the children.
Conduct accounting audits for state CSE agencies of the Executive Branch as well as conduct the four-year review of that states child support guideline for the Judicial Branch.
Every states child support guideline should be the same as the TANF amount for any particular family in each state.
The outrageous child support guidelines that are imposed on parents across the nation are being completely hidden from the Legislative Branch. Our elected officials are powerless to identify the common denominator regarding welfare reform with this type of deception. It is no wonder that Congress shakes a finger at deadbeats in California for not paying 18% of their pay for 2 children when, in reality, these victims of fraud are demanded to actually pay 40%.
The outrageous child support guidelines that are imposed on parents across the nation are enforced by state CSE agencies who operate under the color of federal law (USC 42 666) depriving the rights and privileges of NCPs across counties, across states, and across oceans. NCPs are forced to endure the "Family Law Stigmata" as a result of independent entities poisoning the antidote to the welfare disease provided by the federal government in the state's exploitation of children for money.
Jim Untershine, 824 E Pass Rd #3, Gulfport, MS 39507, firstname.lastname@example.org, www.gndzerosrv.com
Jim Untershine holds a BSEE from Mississippi State University and has 13 years experience in feedback control system design. Mr. Untershine is currently using the teachings of Werner Heisenberg and Henry David Thoreau to expose Family Law in California as the exploitation of children for money and the indentured servitude of heterosexual taxpayers who dare to raise children in this country.
Family Law Stigmata - The following sequence of events insure federal funding by promoting welfare
Splinters in your mind driving you mad
Family Court will deny child custody to the deep pockets parent allowing the full weight of the state's child support guideline to fall on the high earner thus creating a noncustodial parent (NCP), a custodial parent (CP), and a cash flow between them.
Family Court will put the NCP to the curb and deny the NCP from seeing the children.
Slashing the backbone of your support
Family Court will garnish the NCP's wages, force them to pay court costs, evaluation costs, attorney fees.
Family Court will deny federal protection granted to NCPs regarding employer discrimination due to the excessive child support garnishments thus creating a financially insolvent NCP who will soon become unemployed.
Forcing you to carry a heavy burden
Family Court will refuse to lower the unemployed NCP's child support obligation thus creating an ever-growing arrearage that can not be discharged in bankruptcy.
Family Court will encourage the CP to file for Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) thus forcing the CP to request Child Support Enforcement (CSE).
TANF will bill the federal government for 70% of the TANF benefits paid to the CP by the state.
CSE will bill the NCP for full reimbursement plus10% interest on the back child support arrearage that has accrued since time of unemployment.
Attached to this burden you cannot feed yourself
CSE will intercept the NCP's tax refunds, garnish benefits, attach bank accounts, and pillage property.
CSE will suspend the business license of the NCP who is exiled to self-employment.
Attached to this burden you cannot transport yourself
CSE will deny the NCP's drivers license and passport.
CSE will track the NCP across counties, across states, and across oceans.
Attached to this burden you must languish
CSE will continue to bill the NCP for full reimbursement plus 10% interest on the child support arrearage that will continue to grow forever.
CSE will not actively pursue the NCP since this may reduce the interest charged on this money that never existed.
Attached to this burden you are stuck inside
CSE will reluctantly file charges against the NCP for criminal non-support when the desperate CP loses their patience.
Criminal Court will recognize CSE as the complainant regarding these criminal charges and deny the NCP a jury trial
Criminal Court will refuse to recognize employer discrimination due to child support garnishments as a lawful excuse regarding these charges
Criminal Court will order the NCP to be stuck inside a jail cell.
Figure One: AllLaw.com Child Support Guidelines Figure Two: FASR Erroneous Child Support Guidelines