it is all about the child.

Child support is more than money
The Daily PressMonday,
August 29th, 2005 08:58:39 AM
By PATIENCE ZWICKY
For The Daily Press

For many people the definition of "child support" is a court ordered financial obligation that they either receive or are ordered to pay.The purpose of this type of child support is to assist the primarycaretaker of a child to better meet the child's needs. It is to helpthem become financially self-sufficient and raise the economic statusof their household to what it would be if the other parent were in thehome contributing directly.

Research has found that financial strain is one of the strongest predictors of depression and crisis in a family unit and numerousstudies have linked poverty to poor health, poor performance in school,increased behavior and emotional problems, and increased involvement incriminal activities in children.

Unfortunately, these negative outcomes do not appear to be restricted to just single-parent households dealing with the effects of poverty. They have also been linked in higher than average rates to single-parent households in general. Research seems tobe indicating that children need the emotional support of both parents,as well as financial support.

Parents are responsible for supporting their child financially, but they are also their child's first and most important teachers. Our society recognizes this by celebrating parenthood twice a year with holidays honoring mothers and fathers. It is their parent that a child relies upon to read to them each day, keep them safe and healthy, and tuck them in each night. It is their parent that a child trust sexplicitly and unconditionally to make the best choices for them. And,it is their parent from which a child seeks guidance and learns how to deal with the many changes and challenges they encounter each day.

Yet,all too often, parents don't realize how important they each are to their child's physical, social, and emotional development. An article published in the HealthScoutNews highlighted recent researchconducted by Arnold Stolberg, Ph.D. (Virginia Commonwealth Universityin Richmond) and his colleagues. According to the article, theresearchers found that the effects of poverty contributed to the poorhealth and social challenges of children in single-parent households,but they also found that two other factors had significant impact onthe adjustment of children: involvement of both parents and cooperationbetween the parents. This was regardless of whether the parents weremarried, divorced, separated, or had never lived in the same household.

Even though it may not always be the easiest thing for parents to do,especially those who live in separate households, research supports working together in raising your children. Involvement from bothparents can boost a child's self-esteem and provide both a male and female role model.

Fighting or arguing in front of children, especially over matters concerning them, often frightens young children and may even lead them to believe they are the cause of the problems between the parents. Working together, however, provides a positive social example and encourages children to be cooperative in their ownrelationships.

While differences parents may have with each other may not easily be put aside, it is best for parents to keep those differences between themselves. Because parenting is hard work, and even the best of us need a littlehelp from time to time, various agencies and organizations exist in theAshland area to assist parents.

Parents may contact the Ashland CountyChild Support Agency for issues relating to the establishment of paternity and child support, the Family Court Commissioner for issues regarding child custody and placement,

W.I.C. for nutrition and health related information, and Head Start, ABC Healthy Families, localchurches, and the Department of Health and Human Services for parentinginformation and resources.

Child support does mean money for families struggling with financia lstress, but it also means providing children with emotional support and guidance. Research is finding children who have the involvement andsupport of parents that work together on family issues (whether theylive together or not), adjust to the challenges of growing up better than those of parents who don't.

So, when it comes down to it, no matter what type of child support we're referring to, ultimately, it is all about the child.

Does It Get Any More Real?

I think you make an excellent point.
I agree that there are great inequalities in the system. My husband for instance may work 70-80 hours per week, to maintain our financial situation, while paying child support that goes directly to the state, because the ex refuses to work at all.

He sacrifices time with us, to make sure that ends meet. If he were not as driven, or did not have skills that are in demand, we could be in a very, very different situation. I can't imagine what a father who makes $10 an hour, and pays $75-100 per week in support must have to sacrifice, food, transportation, etc.

If my husband were paying a reasonable rate of support, particularly because the child does not benefit from the support, he would no thave to work quite as much as he does. Granted, we have chosen to live where we live, and provide our children with private education, but we sacrifice certain things because of these choices.

We are paying for the ex's choices, day in and day out. It is not a level playing field.

Additionally, the new act of credit reporting, when the arraearage exceeds two months support is ridiculous. Particularly for people who are struggling to pay their bills on time, then to go and ruin their credit, so that they have to pay higher interest on home loans, auto loans, and even insurance rates, as these are now credit based.

They make it impossible for a NCP, or father as is usually the case, to attain a quality of life.

It's forced poverty, in my opinion.

a response......

I have followed this and I think you all can agree that until the child support system is changed so that all children are treated equally we all will be discriminated against.

The state takes away the rights of children to spend equal time with both parents so that the father can be made into a welfare provider for the mother. I have it in writting from the state that they don't care who pays as long as the state doesn't have to.

So all of us need to write and call their respective politicians to get the federal and state laws changed to go away from income based support. Mothers need to be held to the same level of economic responsibility as fathers.

Do this by making support based on the poverty level modeling the foster care payment system to foster parents that goes on basic needs. If parents want to provide more then they can on their own.

Once the state is forced to treat us equally they will be more likely to allow us to have more time with our children. Any father who goes out of his way to work extra hours is playing into the system.

I refuse to work any overtime that will skew my income level so I will end up having to pay more support to my sons' deadbeat mother, she lives below the poverty level because she refuses to work and my boys know it.

Pepper all that you know with requests for help in this and let's change the laws.

And we march on.

Sounds like there is a computer glitch somewhere.

Back in the 1990's, the incoming AG of TX implemented his own new computer programming to track child support evaders.

Their system incorporated all the old and closed cases of the parents who paid child support and their terminated cases. Their new & improved program drug up the closed cases and re-opened them, causing "new" cases to prosecute.
It was a mess.

Today the attorney general of Texas Gregg Abbott, has made it his mission to get "Deadbeat" parents.

To do this he employed Richard "Casey" Hoffman, founder of Support Kids headquartered in Austin, Texas to help him collect child support.

Support Kids is one of the top three Private child support collection agencies in the country. They collect a 33% commission on monies collected.

Conflict of Interest?

We must take the chance to make a change

from a group--
Arkansas Child Support is not determined by legislation, but by a private committee.

The Committee on Child Support meets approximately every four years in order to discuss child support amounts. Historically the amount is raised every time without a wide spectrum of viewpoints.

The determination based on neither scientific statistics nor common-sense.

I encourage everyone to be on time.

There are few opportunities like this to make a real difference.

There was another detrimental meeting that occurred earlier in the year and nobody with our similar viewpoint attended. Upon contacting many of us whom I had e-mailed, each person stated that he or she believed that plenty of other people would attend. They all assumed that the next person would be there. I ask that you make a strong effort to attend. There are going to possibly be multiple representatives of "women's rights" organizations, including N.O.W., attending this meeting.

Although women's rights are very different from children's or mother's rights, the conference center will have many representatives of women's rights organizations present. There is a strong probability that the term "DEADBEAT DADS" will be throughout the room.

The ideology of "DEADBEAT DADS" should not be used in determining child support. If you do not attend or encourage others to attend, then do not complain about the inevitable outcome.

I also highly encourage representatives of out-of-state organizations also attend this meeting.

This will set the stage for common-sense rules to be implemented in every state.

There are several considerations that the committee is ignoring: Interstate child support Surplus child support amounts received by the CP OCSE getting the amounts incorrect Being double taxed on the child support Does the Custodial Parent use the money appropriately? Summer daycare and extra-curricular activities for the child These issues should be considered in court. What most view as common-sense differs from the opinion of the courts. So, we must erase the ambiguity and do what makes America a democratic and safe nation.

Pass this on in e-mail to everyone as you see fit.
Best Regards, Eli For confirmation of times, feel free to call Donna Gay at (501) 682-9400> <> <>

Was In The Groups and Wanted to Save it Here.

Child Custody: Where Men Hit a Glass Ceiling

Child custody has emerged as an area where men run into a glass ceiling. "It's awful to take a child away from its mother!"

Sound familiar? That is because it is the message that has been repeatedly hammered at society by feminists, as well as from some conservatives. But you won't hear the equivalent, "It's awful to take a child away from its father," because the feminists aren't pushing equivalent respect for fathers.

Instead, you are more likely to hear this mantra about fathers, "there's so many deadbeat dads." The feminists have successfully changed the law, the courts, and societal attitudes when it comes to the custody and care of children from split homes.Instead of looking at fathers' capabilities and indiscretions individually, the law makes sweeping assumptions and treats all fathers as second class.

Women, if you are successful in no other area of life, read this article closely, because you can easily succeed here, the system is so weighted in your favor. Free money, free legal help, and kind court staff. If you don't work, or don't work much, you'll make out even better, so it is best not to work much. And all you need to do is get pregnant!

Men, all I offer for advice to you is this:

if you have children, you'd better pray that you remain a couple.

Sad as it sounds, this is where the law is at. When a couple that has mutual children splits up, the courts examine just a few factors to determine custody, known as the "best interests of the child." These factors make it very likely that the woman will get custody of the children and hence child support money.

Two of the most important factors include who is better able to "take care" of the child and whether there has been domestic violence by one of the parents. Well, these factors "sound" good, but in reality, they have been specifically selected for their heavy bias against fathers. There are numerous other factors that address equally as serious issues, that could affect mothers for the worse, or at least equally affect both parents, such as drug abuse, but these factors are conveniently not found in the "best interests of the child" statutes (there must be an actual drug conviction - which is absurd - one drug-addict mother was able to take custody away from the father even though she snorted meth every single day - the courts had no knowledge of her drug habit!).

"Take care" of the child has little to do with being able to financially support the child. It should, since almost as many women as men work outside of the home now, but because a lot of women with children who split up with the fathers aren't very ambitious and sit around the house watching soap operas, the law has been crafted to label this as "taking care" of the children, instead of earning money.

Since most fathers work full-time, they lose here.

"Domestic violence" is another disguised way of guaranteeing that the fathers lose. Women are now trained by society to call the police anytime their boyfriend or husband loses his temper, and are using and abusing this taxpayer funded "helpline" at an increasingly alarming rate.

Murray A. Straus, a sociologist and co-director for the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire, reported that at least 30 studies of domestic violence, including some he had conducted, found that women were as equally culpable of domestic violence as men. Yet this information is not widely publicized, and is downplayed by both police officers and the courts.

Women are also abusing restraining orders. A recent article in Human Events cited a government study that found that fewer than half of all restraining orders contained even an allegation of physical violence. Instead of working out their fights, or leaving the man, women are taking the easy way out and forcing taxpayers to pay for their "tattling" every time they take up the time of a police officer or court.

Of course, many times it is the woman who caused the fight, but that is not going to end up in the court's minute entry.

Men are laughed at if they are the victims of domestic violence. One young father attempted to seek free legal help from a domestic violence law clinic after his ex-wife continued to hit him, and the clinic turned him away in amusement. Another young father had the domestic violence of an ex-girlfriend, who had hit him, used against him in order to justify taking away his child.

It is easy for mothers to obtain free legal aid in pursuing custody of their children. There are flyers everywhere - in women's restrooms, in doctors' offices, and in government buildings, offering free legal resources for women to use. The Legal Aid clinics help out so many mothers with custody disputes and divorces that recently they have had to limit their representation of custody cases to cases alleging abuse. Domestic violence legal clinics are at many of the law schools now, and give women free legal help with divorces, custody disputes, and restraining orders. If there are low-income requirements, they are rarely verified; any woman can come in and say she makes very little money, and on her word alone she will receive free legal help (just like at Planned Parenthood).

The child support laws are crafted not just to provide for the cost of raising a child, but to bring the parent receiving the support to the level she would have been at if she were still with the father! The absurdity of this situation can be seen in this all too common example: A woman cheats on her husband and then files for no-fault divorce. She gets custody of their children, AND the benefit of his salary and payraises until their child turns 18 (25 in Massachusetts) - all the money benefits as if they were still married (and she may even get alimony on top of that, but that is a different issue for another column, and at least with alimony, once the mother remarries, the alimony goes away)!

Why should an ex-wife be guaranteed, years after having been married, the same living standard of her husband? Absent unhealthy circumstances, why shouldn't the parent with the BETTER living standards be considered the one better prepared to take care of the child? That way, one parent isn't stuck paying for the ex-spouse too. Currently, though, most child custody laws do not consider financial responsibility of the parent as one of the "best interests of the child."

Child support is widely touted by governmental agencies as one of the most important things government does, and the duty of it is glorified almost nazilike to the level of a moral authority. Yet what exactly does child support do? The charts for child support award way too much money to the custodial parent - does anyone really believe that it costs $800/month to raise a child? In most situations, the mother has custody and makes considerably less money than the father. According to fairly standard child support guidelines, if the mother makes $20,000/yr and the father makes $40,000/yr, and there is one child, the father should pay $535/month in child support (the formula adds both parents' salaries together, then comes up with a random number of how much they think that child costs - here it was $800 - then has the non-custodial parent pay the percentage his salary is - here it is 66%).

Does anyone REALLY THINK that many of the mothers who resort to going to court to collect child support are the types of mothers who would spend a full $535/month on one child, as well as another $265/month of their own money (particularly if the child is older than 5 and in school)? There is no monitoring of that money, and it is very difficult to get a court to order any type of accounting by the mother. One such mother of a 6-year old has stated that she is saving the money for breast implants.

Furthermore, the concept of child support money discourages personal responsibility and ambition. It penalizes the custodial parent for working harder and trying to get ahead, because a higher paying job would reduce the amount of free money they receive from the other parent. It is akin to welfare - if you work hard, you aren't eligible for it. And it is a double penalty, because it also penalizes the non-custodial parent for working harder. The more money the non-custodial parent makes, the more money is taken out of his paycheck to go to the residential parent.Do we really want to heap benefits on mothers who split up with the fathers, essentially giving "reward" money to women who have sex, instead of letting them suffer the consequences?

Everyone knows that sex without true commitment leads to broken down homes and emotional trauma, particularly for any children involved. Everyone also knows that when you have sex, you may get pregnant. In some ways, child support is merely a disguised form of prostitution - women are encouraged to have sex and receive money from any man who succeeds in impregnating them. After sex, the man then has no other contact with the woman except to give her money for the child, and any modicum of visitation he can squeak out. Instead of teaching women to avoid gratuitous sex, our society encourages sex with its condom education and giveaways, and easy access to taxpayer-funded Planned Parenthoods. Women realize they can have gratuitous sex without suffering any consequences, because the safety net of a man's pocketbook will always be there for them, thanks to the long arm of the moral authoritarian government child support agency that reassures them that they are right.

And what exactly are deadbeat dads? Many "deadbeat dads" are simply fathers who are going through a hard time economically; they may have lost a job, or simply are having a difficult time paying $800/month in child support. Sure there are some fathers who have completely rejected any responsibility towards their children, but that doesn't mean all fathers should be treated like criminals and rounded up by Sheriff's Offices and taken into jail. Why are the fathers held accountable while the mothers aren't?Why this bias against fathers has been allowed to develop may be the result of conservatives' neglect of this area of the law. Conservatives have avoided domestic relations law, not wanting to get involved in this area because of their strong dislike of divorce as well as their old-fashioned view that mothers are better nurturers than fathers. Consequently, liberal feminists have had free reign here. What is interesting however, is the flavor of feminism which has prevailed - it is not the version that encourages men to be more sensitive, but instead the version that accepts prostitution and rampant sexual promiscuousness as a component of womens' equality.

The feminists' efforts in this area are no doubt driven by both their beliefs that mothers are better nurturers of children, and their resentment towards men who use women for sex and then leave them. But punishing all men equally fails to take into account certain things. First of all, those men eventually remarry and move on with their lives. The courts consider the new spouse's salary when computing child support! So punishing the father also results in punishing another completely innocent woman.

Secondly, child support creates resentment and additional fighting between the parents, since the paying parent resents the other parent and will try to change the situation. This clogs up the family courts.

So what should the solution be? For starters, how about ending child support between parents who both want custody of their children? If someone really wants their children, they will find a way to make ends meet. It just doesn't cost that much to raise a child, no matter what people whine. The message we should be sending is, if you can't afford a child, then abstain from sex! Foster parents receive around $300/month per child. This isn't very much money. Nobody seems to complain about those children not receiving $800/month. Why not let the parent who wants to care for the child, and is more financially capable, have the custody, or at the very least cut out the child support? That way, no parent is stuck supporting the other parent. This would also send a message to parents that they should be ambitious and set good work ethics for their children, instead of the current message which encourages parents to be lazy and earn less.

If the mother has to work during the day, and the father works evenings, let the father take care of the children during the day instead of putting them in daycare. There are better workable solutions than giving the children to the mother just because she is lazy and stays at home, utilizing the father only as a money funnel. One mother sat around the house getting high on her days off, yet still put her child in daycare, using the father's money!

Finally, "domestic violence," which has been abused by women, should be looked at more closely by the courts if it is to be a factor in determining child custody. There may be more to "domestic violence" than appears in a brief minute entry or police report. For example, the mother may have been racked out on drugs at the time she called the police, as well as every day of her life, yet this is not taken into consideration as part of the "best interests of the child" unless there is an actual drug conviction.

The courts should also examine whether the mother is the type to move from abuser to abuser, which ultimately creates an unstable upbringing for the child. Is it really better that a child stay with a mother who cycles through violent or volatile relationships, or is it better that the child live with the father whose only "history of domestic violence" occurred when the mother obtained dubious restraining orders against him when she was having affairs on him?

Unfortunately, the laws do not currently take these circumstances into consideration when considering the "best interests of the child." Unless a father has an excellent attorney who is able to get ahold of hard evidence proving these types of circumstances, and has success persuading a judge to give these factors some weight even though they are not in the law, a father is simply out of luck.

He has reached the glass ceiling for fathers in child custody.

Rachel Alexander has done work with a domestic violence law clinic and has studied this area of the law in law school.

Visit Arizona Fathers' Rights (even if you're not from Arizona, they have a very helpful links page).

The State of Washington Has Received

Hello and good afternoon to everyone.

I just received a document from the division of child support today that says since the fiscal year 2000, the state of Washington has received $588,330,769.00 dollars from the federal government to help give the state an incentive to go out and find more people to pay more child support. It's no wonder we are having such a hard time as non-custodial parents trying to get anywhere.

Also, I got a phone call from Senator Zarelli himself, and he told me that he will try his best to be at the next meeting with us on October 20, 2005.

My name is Stan Rains

My name is Stan Rains,
I am now homeless as a result of false allegations used against me in the course of a divorce and custody battle. My child and I have survived 9 formal sex abuse allegations against me. My child was molested by my ex's nephew at the age of 2. He was convicted of that and 3 other molestations.

My ex continued to place my child alone with the convicted molestor (no jail time). We had numerous intense arguements over this. She divorced me 6 months later, as a result of this dispute, and moved into the molestor's home.

That is when the first allegations began. My ex had the molestor's mother take my child to a psychologist for sex abuse evaluation without telling about her own son's conviction. My ex went to the CPS claiming I had molested my child, again without telling of the conviction for violent molestation of my child by her own nephew. My child was taken to a hospital fo! r a calposcope (a camera inserted into her vagina) claiming only I could have harmed my child and not telling about the prior conviction of the nephew. My ex also claimed I had been violent when in reality, it was my ex who had a history of violence, even before we met.

During the divorce my ex testified that the molestation of our daughter and three other little girls, all under 7, was "HUMOROUS" and "APPROPRIATE". My ex also testified that her own mother had been the primary abuser and molestor of my ex and her siblings as children.

I was completely exonerated on all allegations. My ex and her attorneys have even admitted to making false allegations. My ex admitted to multiples of felonies and innumerable misdemeanors during the divorce and myriads more in the next 8 false allgations. My ex was still given custody. The courts ordered my ex to never expose my child to her convicted molestor again, she continued anyway and the court even ruled that it would refuse to hold her in contempt for these felony acts. It was also ordered that my daughter was never to left alone with her lesbian pedophile maternal grandmother. My ex would leave her for weeks with that agreed pedophile. I took the issue all the way to the Texas Supreme Court and was refused a ruling on that egregious endangerment of my child and violations of court orders that went unpunished.

In the latest false allegation, the judge, Henry Schuble, stated in open court on the record, that what he and his predecessor, Judge Rose Vela had done. "What has happened to Mr. Rains in this court is as un-Constitutional as all Hell. But, since I am not an Activist Judge, I am not going to do anything about it." He went on to even greater abuses of me, my child and my attorney. My case is Nueces County, Texas, Cause #97-2091E. The record of this case is 4 1/2 feet thick. The Honorable Ron Paul's office has been aware of this case since 1995.

My ex and even her attorneys have admitted on the record or in open court to having knowingly made false and unfounded allegations against me in custody and property matters on occasions so numerous as to be beyond ridiculous and into the unbelievably bizarre.

Some of the latest abuses are documented on a web site maintained by my former attorney, Mr. David Sibley. This can be found at http://www.davidsibley.com/Bad%20Cases/RainsSummary.htm

What I have mentioned above is less than 1% of the public record on what has been done to destroy me as a father and of course to destroy my child. I have been falsely arrested have transcripts of police perjory, ad litems testifying to having falsified major reports of witness interviews that were never done and submitting billings to the court under oath later admitting under oath the reports and bills had been false after these items were proven in court. Court appointed psychologist who testified his reccommendations to maintain maternal custody was solely based on politics. Neither were sanctioned and I was forced to pay both for their frauds on the court. As well as pay the bill of an attorney who admitted the bill was for actions base on knowingly unfounded allegations.

The last 10 years has cost me an emotional price I may never recover from, but I am already nearly 60 and only about 20 more years left. The financial expense has been over 7 figures and three business (available as public record information). And the greatest cost will be the next 70 to 80 years of my child's expected life span, she is now 13. Judges and attorneys openly admit the laws (VAWA) and the 'system' (Bar and Judiciary) are extremely biased against men. The bias is really against our children and our countries future, not against men.

I have assisted others as a paralegal with a local attorney whose cases are even worse than mine. Repealing VAWA is a good first step.

Very Sincerely,

Stan Rains
currently receiving mail at
921 N. Chaparral, Ste 208
Corpus Christi, Texas 78401

CHILDREN'S BILL OF RIGHTS

CHILDREN'S BILL OF RIGHTS
1. The right to be treated as important human beings, with unique feelings,ideas and desires, and not as a source of argument between parents.
2. The right to a continuing relationship with both parents and the freedomto receive love from and express love for both.
3. The right to express love and affection for each parent without having tostifle that love because of fear of disapproval by the other parent.
4. The right to know that their parents' decision to divorce is not theirresponsibility and that they will continue to be loved by both parents.
5. The right to continuing care and guidance from both parents.
6. The right to honest answers to questions about the changing familyrelationships.
7. The right to know and appreciate what is good in each parent without oneparent degrading the other.
8. The right to have a relaxed, secure relationship with both parentswithout being placed in a position to manipulate one parent against theother.
9. The right to have both parents not undermine the other parent's time withthe children by suggesting tempting alternatives or by threatening towithhold parental contact as a punishment for the children's wrongdoing.
10. The right to experience equal and consistent contact with both parentsand to be protected from parental disputes and disagreements.

Letters To The Editor...........

Aldrich didn't make his case

Judge Stephen Aldrich's Aug. 4 Taking Exception op-ed, "Column fails to make case for custody law changes," does not support his allegation that Mark Yost fails to make his case. The point of Yost's columns are that the current custody presumption is unfair and, therefore, needs reform.
Currently, one parent is allowed to remain a real parent (custodial) while the other becomes a "second class" parent with few, if any, rights (non-custodial). Presumption of joint physical custody is only a starting point and makes sense in light of the fact that the parents were presumed equal in the marriage. Anything less than a presumption of joint custody is bad law because it is at odds with "all [persons] are created equal." The evidence presented and the fair application of good law should determine whether or not parents remain equals at the conclusion of the custody case.
Aldrich completely fails to show how a presumption in which the parties start out as equals threaten a fair, child-centered outcome of a custody case. That is because the presumption of joint legal and physical custody could never be such a threat.
Aldrich's submission appears to miss the point of Yost's columns and does exactly what it alleges Yost has done: it fails to make its case.
CHRISTOPHER and KATHLEEN HEITZINGER

St. Paul

Fathers are every bit as important as mothers. And, I hate saying it, but there are more than a few bad apples in the guise of mothers who ignore their children and their needs on a daily basis. Some mothers use their children as tools of manipulation and think that they have a greater right to parent, raise and make the decisions that impact their children.
I'd like to see anyone who has ever had the honor and privilege of being a child's parent go through not seven years worth of fighting, deceit and denial of parental access, like we have, but just five minutes. I'd like to see them watch a child cry uncontrollably because they were told they couldn't see their daddy, even when he's in the driveway. I'd like to see them experience that before they say matter-of-factly that there is not a serious problem with the way Minnesota courts and the law handle custody.
MAI CHAN
St. Paul Park

A Message From The Groups

Frequently I observe the inherent tendency for Mens Groups to self-destruct and collapse into a squabbling, bickering wasteland of nothing.

Almost every Group is swamped by Alpha males competing with each other for 'primacy' and superiority within the Group. All focus is lost and energies wasted on infighting and squabbling.

The feminists note this male competitive instinct and rely on it to advance their warped aims.Gentlemen, do NOT give the feminists a 'gift'.

Remember we are all on the same team, subdue your alpha-malism and become a team player.Stay On-focus and do not repeat the errors of previous Mens Groups.

Feminism Is Your Enemy..NOT your brothers.

HILLARY'S FIRST NIGHT AS PRESIDENT

In January 2008 Hillary Clinton gets elected President and is spending her first night in the White House.

She has waited so long.......... The ghost of George Washington appears, and Hillary says, "How can I best serve my country?"

Washington says, "Never tell a lie."
"Ouch!" Says Hillary, "I don't know about that."

The next night, the ghost of Thomas Jefferson appears...
Hillary says, "How can I best serve my country?"
Jefferson says, "Listen to the people." "Ohhh! I really don't want to do that."

On the third night, the ghost of Abe Lincoln appears...
Hillary says, "How can I best serve my country?"
Lincoln says, "Go to the theater."

A Slogan to mischief

Federal Child Support Enforcement Reimbursement Matching Rate

The federal government currently reimburses each state 66% of the funding required for the state to operate its CSE program. The federal government's funding is "open ended" in that it pays its percentage of expenditures by matching the amount spent by state and local governments with no upper limit or ceiling.

States do not have to use incentive payments to fund their CSE programs

When the program began in 1975, the federal match was 75%. In 1982, P.L. 97-248 reduced the federal match to 70% (FY1983-FY1987). In 1984, P.L. 98-378 reduced the federal match to 68% in FY1988 and FY1989, and to 66% in FY1990 and years thereafter.

These costs include moneys for "locate" services, paternity establishment, establishment and modification of child support orders, and enforcement services.

In 1975, when the IV-D [CSE] program began, it was necessary to have a very high matching rate in order to persuade the states to participate.

The federal government also pays 90% of state costs of developing and improving CSE automated management information systems, including expenditures on the hardware (i.e., computers) and 80-90% of costs attributable to laboratory costs incurred in determining paternity.

It was believed that over time, the increased stake by the states in this program would have the effect of encouraging closer scrutiny of expenditures of scarce dollars.

The reverse was the result. Because of the regular decrease of matching federal funds. States shifted an unbalanced burden onto the non-custodial parent's incomes to match monetary gaps.

This attitude has produced a class of Americans plunged into servitude expected to help fund Welfare and The Child Support Enforcement Systems of Each State.

There became a need to produce a marketing campaign.

Then came the beating cry of the "The Deadbeat Dad".
A Slogan to mischief.