2008-12-05T17:00:40Z http://blog.forgottenparent.org/atom.aspx Quick Blogcast tag:blog.forgottenparent.org,2007-01-26:d607f911-bc3b-4fe9-8dbe-8ca209d44c14 Tony Curtis 2007-01-26T00:55:00Z 2007-01-26T00:55:00Z
Look at the people that push for higher child support.  There is no thought about what is going on in the noncustodial home.  The focus is the custodial home, with no thought of the noncustodial home providing shelter, food, or anything for the children during parent time, which is 25% of their lives.  In fact those contributions are not even thought about in the economic determinations of how much a noncustodial parent is providing for his/her children.  They assume that the children spend 100% of the time in the custodial home.  If you think about it the noncustodial parent is providing the majority of the costs for the child in the custodial home, and all of the costs of raising the child in the noncustodial home.  He is paying more for his children's support than any other parent out there.  But this way of thinking about his contribution assumes that anyone recognizes that he is a parent.  He is not a parent, he is not giving enough for his children, we need to raise child support.

The Policy Studies Inc. (PSI) reports on determining child support amounts for the majority of states estimate the costs of child-rearing, then assign all of those costs to the custodial home.  Not only that, they ignore the need for a second home altogether.  All of their economics are based on the costs for one home, an intact married family.  They say that the standard of living that existed during the marriage must continue after the divorce.  This completely ignores the added cost of the extra home, and puts an unrealistic financial burden on the noncustodial parent.  But we are not dealing with a parent here, there is no need for a second home, only the custodial home and an income source.  There is not another parent in this equation, only the custodial parent.

The IRS gets into the act as well.  The only tax benefits available to noncustodial parents by default are the itimized deductions for medical costs for children, and medical flex spending accounts for children.  To take a child as an exemption they have to get a permission slip from the custodial parent.  Without that, no deduction.  They cannot take the Head of Household filing status, the Earned Income Credit, the Daycare Credit, or the Daycare Flex spending accounts.  To the IRS we are not a parent, we are a source of income for the government.

So I thought ForgottenParent was a good description of our situation.  I hope that through our efforts someone will realize that we are parents too, who actually need resources for our children.

I feel the only way we will be heard is if we get enough of us together at one time and speak up!  If we could get 1000 people to go to the capitol on the same day at the same time, someone might listen.  Noncustodial parents, their family and friends, 1000 people.  We need to get a huge email list going so we can contact 1000 people and more.  When we get 1000 we need to go for 2000, and on, and on.  That is probably the only way we will be unforgotten.  Email me (info@forgottenparent.org) and send an email to everyone you know who would be interested and have them email me.  Fifty people won't do it.  One hundred people won't do it.  But one thousand might do it.  Two thousand might get someone's attention.  That's what we need to do.  Email me today and let's see if we can show up at the capitol before they get these bills passed!]]>

Because that is exactly what we are, forgotten, but only as parents.

tag:blog.forgottenparent.org,2007-01-18:178e1e90-6dc3-40e2-a9ab-9ea842f6f0f9 Tony Curtis 2007-01-18T22:57:00Z 2007-01-18T22:57:00Z At the Tuesday Senate Judiciary Committee meeting we had a great opportunity to get our story heard.  I presented a 15 minute PowerPoint presentation to the committee, and when it was over I think they were somewhat surprised.  I used numbers and analysis rather than stories and personal experience.  The numbers did tell the story.  The story of the gulf between gross income and ability to pay.  The distance between the models that determine child support amounts, and the financial reality faced by noncustodial parents.  It may have fallen on a few deaf ears, but I think it was worthwhile.  Some of what we do is education, and I think we need to do it with hard facts.  Yes, it is also important to tell the personal stories, but they have heard many.  So I have approached the situation with data and reasoning, hoping to give them something new to think about.

I will continue, and I will keep telling this story that the numbers tell, in hopes that someone will realize that this is the reality that the noncustodial parent deals with.  I will be putting some links on the website that I hope will be useful.

We need to talk to our Senators and Reps about at least these two bills, Senate Bill 23 (child support increase) and House Bill 15 (suspend driver's license)!  I talked to the ORS today and asked them what I could do if I lost my job.  Could I call them the day I lost my job and let them know, so they could start a modification.  They said that I could not get them to put through a mod unless I had a job.  I asked if they could do a mod based on unemployment insurance, they said no, that is temporary, but they would take 50% of the payment and apply it to the support owed.  They said I would probably go into arrears if I were unemployed for any length of time, and I would just have to catch it up later.  I asked how support could be based on income I was no longer making, they said to get it modified I would have to get a lawyer, the ORS wouldn't touch it unless I had a job.  I asked if I did get a job, and had ORS do the mod would the change be retroactive to when I contacted them, they said I would have to pay support based on my old income, until the mod was complete, they don't do retroactive.  To do retroactive I would have to get a lawyer.

House bill says they can take away the driver's license after someone is just 60 days behind, yet the bill is for the worst offenders.  Sorry but you can be 60 days behind very easily.  The above case, where someone loses a job, and it takes awhile to get a job at close to the same income level, say 3 - 6 months, they would be in major arrears.  So lets take the license so he can't drive to job interviews.  I also could see how the 60 day threshold might be reached with just $1 of arrearages.  If you were behind $1, in January, then paid your full child support in Feb, they do not apply any of your payment to the January $1, so when you pay in March, you still owe the $1 from Jan, you are now 60 days in arrears.  Basing the arrears on a date doesn't work with this system, it should be based on amount past due.  And if this is for habitual offenders, since when was 60 days habitual?

Senate bill 23 is on the 2nd senate reading calendar.  Contact your Senators and talk to them about this bill.  Do the same for House Bill 15, contact your rep.  It is up for 3rd reading in the house.

]]>

At the Tuesday Senate Judiciary Committee meeting we had a great opportunity to get our story heard.