Its ALL about the CHILD SUPPORT. PROOF!

Topic by iMickey503

IMickey503

Home Forums Men’s and Father’s Rights Its ALL about the CHILD SUPPORT. PROOF!

This topic contains 8 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by Daryll55  Daryll55 1 month ago.

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #899702
    +3
    IMickey503
    iMickey503
    Participant
    12484

    What do you know? Great when a LAW FIRM just tells it how it is.

    2019 50/50 Parenting Time Bill

    RIGHT at the very end of the article THEY WROTE, it tells it how it is:

    An equal parenting-time presumption would result in child support awards that would dramatically be reduced in many cases. But more importantly, the Illinois bill would create an uphill battle for individuals such as victims of domestic violence to combat equal parenting time schedules.

    And if you read from the START, LET ME JUST MAKE SURE YOU GOT THIS PART THEY MADE SURE YOU WOULD KNOW IT WAS THE EVIL BAD MEN!

    “…This is part of a national outreach from organizations such the National Parents Organization, whose original name was the Foundation for Fathers and Families….

    In fact, it tells you JUST what these Family courts are here to do and who they support. In fact blatantly lying that only 10% of families have problems with custody. In fact they make it sound like that men get it already at 50%. Well SURE! If you just cut out the numbers ofd the ones that do divorce without a DV charge. Out of that small number, I bet you it is 50% of like.. 100 people. Hmm.

    Article bellow for all of you to look at while this site is still up. Hope Garg still does back ups here.

    In 2018, the 50/50 parenting time bill created controversy in Illinois. Proponents were from the father’s rights camp and steadfastly promoted the 50/50 parenting-time presumption. There were strong-arm tactics to try to push through the various 50/50 parenting bills in 2018. This is part of a national outreach from organizations such the National Parents Organization, whose original name was the Foundation for Fathers and Families.

    HB 185 (and Committee Amendment No. 1) renews the push from the father’s rights community to enact a 50/50 presumption in Illinois. And this parenting time bill is beginning to get press with the Chicago Mayoral candidate, LaShawn Ford being its main sponsor and biggest backer. The Illinois chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers has voted unanimously against both HB 185 as HCA No. 1.

    The Original Bill: The original bill would change the definition section to provide that, “the involvement of both parents for equal time is presumptively in the best interests of the children.” It would eliminate the language, “Nothing in this Act requires that each parent be allocated decision-making responsibilities.”

    It would further amend 750 ILCS 5/602.7 regarding Allocation of Parental Responsibilities: Parenting Time and would provide: “Unless the parents present a mutually agreed written parenting plan and that plan is approved by the court, the court shall allocate parenting time. There would be a rebuttable presumption that it is in the child’s best interests to award equal time to each parent.”

    Regarding findings, it would have similar provisions to the child support guidelines and the maintenance guidelines. It would create a mandate that if the court were to deviate from the presumption for equal parenting time, the court would have to issue a written decision setting forth its specific findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of the deviation. More specifically, the law would provide: “If the court deviates from the presumption contained in this subsection, the court shall issue a written decision stating its specific findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of the deviation from the presumption.”

    Regarding restrictions on parenting time, it would make an already difficult proposition even more difficult. It would provide within 750 ILCS 5/603.10, “The court shall issue a written decision stating its specific findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of its ruling.”

    House Committee Amendment No. 1: HCA No. 1 is a delete and replace amendment. It would make three critical changes to Illinois parental allocation law.

    Implication that Equal Decision Making Required: It would first remove from Illinois the provision: “Nothing in this Act requires that each parent be allocated decision-making responsibilities.” By implication regarding rules of construction, it could be argued that the amendments would require equal decision making. The 2016 rewrite to the 600 series of the IMDMA sought to gently remind judges that they must follow the best interests of children standard. One of the tools available to the judge in advancing this concept is the provision that nothing in this Act requires that each parent be allocated decision-making responsibilities. It affirms that children’s best interest come first. Nothing is gained by deleting this reminder nor is it understood what are the unintended consequences of its deletion.

    Conflation of Standards Applying to Third Parties with Standards Applying to Each Parent: HCA No. 1 would also presume not only that both parents are fit but also provide, at Section 602.7, that:

    It is presumed both parents are fit and fit parents act in the best interest of their children, therefore the court shall not place any restrictions on parenting time as defined in Section 600 and described in Section 603.10, unless it finds by a preponderance of the evidence…

    The amendment confuses the “fitness” standard applicable to third-party litigation against natural parents with the best interests’ standard concerning parenting time in an action between natural parents. Constitutionally, there are certain rights that fit parents have against non-parents including grandparent visitation case law. Current law already acknowledges that it is presumed both parents are fit parents in order to minimize potential litigation between the parents. But House Bill 185 attempts to take language that protects natural parents from third party litigation against the parents and apply it to litigation that is between parents. Parents, fit or not, do not always act in the best interests of their children when their own interests are involved. If they did, there would be no need for judicial intervention, because parents would simply “do the right thing” and put their children’s best interests above their own, always. These are case-by case determinations.

    Deletion of the Critical Third Statutory Factor in Allocating Parenting Time: It would delete the third statutory factor in allocating parenting time. This factor did not incorporate the approximation rule in the American Law Institute’s treatise but it did allow the court to consider the parent’s previous caretaking pattern. Thus, the amendment would eliminate the factor that reads:

    the amount of time each parent spent performing caretaking functions with respect to the child in the 24 months preceding the filing of any petition for allocation of parental responsibilities or, if the child is under 2 years of age, since the child’s birth.

    By eliminating this statutory factor, it would purposefully remove the provision in Illinois law that allows a judge to consider the family’s previous pattern of caretaking for the children. Under rules of statutory construction, the amendment would therefore prevent the judge from considering the amount of time each parent spent performing caretaking functions of the children before the divorce occurred. It makes no practical sense to eliminates judicial consideration of perhaps the most important factor in determining what arrangements will best serve the children post-divorce: the arrangements the parties themselves had in place before divorce. Which parent has done what is a critical criterion for the judge to consider in determining how to minimize disruption in a child’s life from the parent’s divorce.

    General Comment: Illinois law was already radically changed regarding the entire Section 600 series of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act. Those changes in our statutory law framework should be given greater time to settle rather than continue to make a change such as a 50/50 presumption. As a result of the 2016 rewrite to Illinois law, we have already seen parenting plans in Illinois be far more “father friendly.” Our income-shares statute also gave the non-residential parent an incentive in a sense to day-count. More on point, it gives the non-residential parent seeking to pay a lower child award, the incentive to count overnights. That has become the new norm because of the provisions in the Illinois income-shares law that provide for a significant reduction in support if a parent has at least 146 overnights per year.

    Proponents of bills such as this conflate shared parenting-time schedules with 50/50 parenting-time presumptions. The trend that we have seen in Illinois toward more and more shared parenting time schedules provide for a more equitable allocation of parenting time has been a good thing. A one-size-fits-all 50/50 parenting time presumption would not be.

    What we have seen with the maintenance guidelines is that while they were posted as a “starting place” they have in fact become the norm. The same thing is predicted for what would happen with parenting plans if there were a 50/50 parenting time presumption. Such as presumption would not be centered around what is in the best interest of the children. There are cases where equal parenting time is appropriate. But we see from other states that once this is a presumption it becomes the norm and it is only in the rare case that it is varied from.

    Nationwide Trends: A good recent article on the national trend is a 2016 Pew Article. That article had stated:

    Laws that encourage shared parenting may sound “seductive” to state lawmakers, but they often force families into bad situations, said Maritza Karmely, a professor at Suffolk University Law School in Boston. Bar associations, judges and lawyers have come out against some of the proposals.

    “A presumption is a pretty radical step,” Karmely said. “That assumes that shared parenting works for most families, and I think that is an enormous assumption.”

    What we have seen nationally is that red states tend have tend to award equal parenting time. For example, in Wisconsin there is a provision that there is a rebuttable presumption that the parties will not be able to cooperate regarding decision making issues in cases of domestic abuse. But in Wisconsin the law provides that each parent shall have regularly occurring, meaningful periods of physical placement with each parent. But that is not tantamount to a presumption of equal placement. Nationally, a father is likely to receive somewhat more than 35% of the parenting time (but note that this is based upon outdated statistics). Yet currently we are seeing a push for equal parenting time presumptions and it is anticipated that there will be a continue to be a push for this one-size-fits-all “solution.”

    A December 2017 Washington Post article summarized:

    The legal push for custody arrangements follows years of lobbying by fathers’ rights advocates who say men feel alienated from their children and overburdened by child-support obligations. This movement is gaining new traction with support from across the political spectrum, as more lawmakers respond to this appeal for gender equality and, among some conservatives, the frustration of a newly emboldened constituency of men who say they are being shortchanged.

    The well-balanced Post article also stated:

    Critics of the bills, including women’s rights groups and some legal associations, say that stricter laws will roll back important protections against abusive or controlling former spouses and take discretion away from judges who are tasked with deciding what is in the best interest of children. They also say that the bills, which would directly apply to only the 10 percent or so of divorcing parents who cannot come to an agreement, are unnecessary because more divorcing parents are already choosing shared custody. Laws that require joint physical custody could also lead to the elimination of child support in some states, women’s advocates say, disrupting a system that was designed to help women, who have historically been paid less in the workforce while performing more unpaid labor at home.

    The trend toward a more equitable parenting-time split is a helpful one and consistent with the best interest of the children. What we have seen with child support and maintenance guidelines is that a presumption becomes much more than a rule of safe harbor. It becomes the result in all but the most unusual cases. The child support guidelines are based upon statistics regarding the cost of raising a child. An equal parenting-time presumption would result in child support awards that would dramatically be reduced in many cases. But more importantly, the Illinois bill would create an uphill battle for individuals such as victims of domestic violence to combat equal parenting time schedules.

    Finally, it appears that the latest attempt via delete and replace amendment of HCA No. 1 is an effort to create less and less judicial discretion in the area of parental allocation. The amendments each are unnecessary and have consequences that cut against the best interest of the children standard.

    Filed Under: Child Custody, Hot Topics, Legislation
    THE GITLIN LAW FIRM DISCLAIMER
    The Gitlin Law Firm website is published as a service to our clients and colleagues. This site is not designed to provide legal advice nor establish a client/lawyer relationship. Due to the general nature of the materials contained here, they may not apply to your individual legal circumstances. Contact the Gitlin Law Firm for advice on your individual situation. 815.338.9401

    Kash Jackson if you don’t know is a guy that happens to also be another man that no longer gets to see his kids.

    Illinois Burning

    Posted by Kash Jackson on Friday, May 3, 2019

    You can see JUST what they are doing. They are taking your kids away from you since you don’t want to play their game. I spoke about how VAWA is used by EVERY SINGLE LAW FIRM OUT THERE to make money. And it just keeps going on.

    Sad to say, but I don’t think that people are ready for change.

    You are all alone. If you have been falsely accused of RAPE, DV, PLEASE let all men know about the people who did this. http://register-her.net/web/guest/home

    #899708
    +2
    Carnage
    Carnage
    Participant
    22139

    No kids, no problem

    To those following me, be careful, I just farted. Men those beans are killers.

    #899719
    +4
    Monk
    Monk
    Participant
    18815

    Vasectomy.

    It’s the unique way I’ve removed your funding.

    #899730
    +6
    Ranger One
    Ranger One
    Participant
    16906

    If I could be dictator for a month, I’d order all the lawyers to be executed. (including judges and prosecutors, as well as politicians that are lawyers, lobbyist lawyers, and law professors) Rip them out, root and stem. The only 2 things lower than whale s~~~ are pedophiles and lawyers.

    All my life I've had doubts about who I am, where I belonged. Now I'm like the arrow that springs from the bow. No hesitation, no doubts. The path is clear. And what are you? Alive. Everything else is negotiable. Women have rights; men have responsibilities; MGTOW have freedom. Marriage is for chumps. If someone stands in the way of true justice, you simply walk up behind them and stab them in the heart-R'as al Ghul.

    #899744
    +5
    Narwhal
    narwhal
    Participant

    Divorce (really split parenting in general) is a horrible situation no matter how you slice it. I don’t think it’s good for kids to grow up in two different homes 50/50 like that. They need to be able to view one of the houses as a home base so to speak. They also need to grow up under one basic set of rules, not too. I’m not at all suggesting that men should have less time, as that’s clearly bad as well. I’m just saying that there is a good way to split it.

    As far as child support. that has issues too. Say you have a Dad who bring is $150k and a mother who brings in $60k. If there were no child support payments made, the two households will be under very different standards of living, may not be able to live reasonably close to each other. In that scenario, I’d say it makes sense that the kids spend more time where there is more money, not a 50/50 split. It’s really kind of mess though regardless.

    There really just needs to be a lot less divorce and kids out of wedlock. That’s the only real answer, and there are two ways to do that. One is through forced or volunteer birth control. The other is by removing the cash and prizes from divorce significantly.

    Ok. Then do it.

    #899746
    +4
    TaxGuy
    TaxGuy
    Participant

    It is presumed both parents are fit and fit parents act in the best interest of their children, therefore the court shall not place any restrictions on parenting time as defined in Section 600 and described in Section 603.10, unless it finds by a preponderance of the evidence…

    The amendment confuses the “fitness” standard applicable to third-party litigation against natural parents with the best interests’ standard concerning parenting time in an action between natural parents. Constitutionally, there are certain rights that fit parents have against non-parents including grandparent visitation case law. Current law already acknowledges that it is presumed both parents are fit parents in order to minimize potential litigation between the parents. But House Bill 185 attempts to take language that protects natural parents from third party litigation against the parents and apply it to litigation that is between parents. Parents, fit or not, do not always act in the best interests of their children when their own interests are involved. If they did, there would be no need for judicial intervention, because parents would simply “do the right thing” and put their children’s best interests above their own, always. These are case-by case determinations.

    Yeah, both parents are deemed to be fit, UNLESS……………..you find by a PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE………. 50.1 to 49.9. Why do I think the judge would still see the scale tipped just slightly in favor of mom?

    Order the good wine

    #929553
    +1
    Wraith
    Wraith
    Participant
    267

    This article has some interesting construction. Out of the gate, it characterizes the “fathers rights camp” as employing strong-arm tactics. Considering the disadvantage fathers have in child custody, how would they be in a position to do any strong-arming?

    Then the article identifies the presumption of equal-parenting time as a red state thing, dragging the current good-vs-evil narrative of partisan politics into it.

    They appeal to women as being “historically been paid less in the workforce while performing more unpaid labor at home,” but that isn’t the current situation. More women than ever are financially self-sufficient, and now they’re even complaining that men on average aren’t making enough relative to women to be attractive husbands (which obviously means providers).

    Regardless of who is making however much, the push is still for women to have motherhood on their exclusive terms. This article is just more evidence of that. If a woman says she’s fine with you not making enough to financially carry the household by yourself, she’s most probably lying. She’s hoping the sight of that newborn baby will spark a sea change in you. When that doesn’t happen how she thinks it should, the resentment will start building.

    #931670
    +2
    Grumpy
    Grumpy
    Participant

    The presumption of the mother being the “better” parent and getting sole custody (plus enforced financial child/spousal support) has been prevalent since the mid 1960’s and both women and Government are quite content to keep it this way as the financial burden is mostly removed from them both and placed on the fathers wallet. Ironically ALL women still whine about how hard/tough “motherhood” is despite not actually paying for the privilege themselves.
    Look.
    I am NOT saying all fathers (men) biological or not are perfect and exemplary examples of virtue and goodness, nor am I delusional enough to assume that all mothers (women) are paragons of virtue. People are who and what they are, good bad and ugly.
    IMPE (In My Personal Experience)
    I cant demonize or extol the virtues or vices of MY parents because I really didn’t know them. Dad was gone before I was 3 for whatever reasons, and I only spent 7 years in my mothers care in total. The majority of the time was as a ward of the “state” until I was 16 and on my own.
    That experience instilled a very high level of distrust in “do-gooders” in general and women in particular because the majority of physical, emotional, psychological, and ALL of the sexual “abuse” came from women in positions of “power” (mother figures). That distrust was and still is reinforced today by both women and government. Strangely enough, apparently it is all my fault and I should still be responsible and pay for it.

    My apologies for my digression.
    At the end of the day, the question is why should any man pay for a child and/or its mother, and provide 2 homes for that child(ren), that wasn’t his decision to have, or offered the opportunity to keep, or to be forced away from because the mother decides to “leave” because she is “unhappy” and lies about the situation, while not having the ability to be responsible for supporting herself and the child(ren)? Especially when the amounts demanded could afford the father the ability to maintain 1 home and a full time nanny for the child in one location if he chose to do so?

    There was a time in my life when I gave a fuck. Now you have to pay ME for it

    #931676
    +1
    Daryll55
    Daryll55
    Participant
    3513

    Family court is just a cottage Industry of Law; has been for decades. Sad thing is, it will never change unless there is sudden fundamental change that shocks the system.
    The bigger the wave; the bigger the wipeout b/c once on that ride (marriage),you can’t just get off.

    Marry again, Hell NO ! ( Even JESUS was hung on a cross just once)

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.