Judge says child support guidelines, previously ruled unconstitutional, should be scrapped

[RogerFGay]

Child support rules faulty, Rockdale judge says (http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/metro/dekalb/0203/12support.html)

Pressure on Georgia's child support guidelines increased this week, when a second Superior Court judge in a routine child support case ruled that the guidelines themselves should be scrapped.

Rockdale County Superior Court Judge Sidney Nation, in a case heard in Conyers, stopped short of calling Georgia's guidelines unconstitutional, as an Atkinson County judge did last year in a case now before the Georgia Supreme Court.

complete article (http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/metro/dekalb/0203/12support.html)

[oracle]

Given that the judge "stopped short of calling Georgia's guidelines unconstitutional," how do you justify the lie of your thread title?

[Warlady]

Roger why are you misleading the reader? Lying to Freecers is shameless. Please change your title to the truth.

[Rhino]

I edited the title in a way that kept his original point. Hopefully that will satisfy everyone.

[Warlady]

Thanks Rhino. Deceptive titles are not the way we do things around here.

[RogerFGay]

You guys are a riot. The actual case decision cited a range of constitutional problems, required for a state court to rule the guidelines null and void on the basis of federal statutes and regulations.

[blakjaque shelac]

Small faux-pas, Rog, but keep up the good fight. Too many good dads are being beat-dead by an outrageoulsy skewed system.

"States must review the guidelines every four years and consider economic data on the cost of raising children when they do.

Although Georgia has reviewed its guidelines, it has never considered that economic data, Nation wrote. In Supreme Court arguments Monday on the Atkinson case, the attorney general's office acknowledged the state had never reviewed data on the cost of raising children."

"...judges to assess child support based on a percentage of a noncustodial parent's gross income. .... For a noncustodial parent of one child, for instance, the range is 17 percent to 23 percent....Current law also allows judges to stray from the formula based on a set of 18 factors, such as custodial parents' income or how many other children a noncustodial parent is trying to support....Advocates for changing the law want those kinds of factors made a mandatory part of the formula, instead of being left to a judge's discretion."


In other words, we pulled a figure out of a hat to make feminists happy and imposed it in law, and made all considerations pertinent to a father's ability to at least support himself or meet his obligations completely discretionary. Ya, that sounds just. Not.

[Warlady]

No disagreement Roger but that's not what you posted in your title. All I ask is that you not deceive. It's a good argument. Why ruin it?

[DesertFox]

Roger, had you included the above comment of yours in the original post, so that there was a link between your title and what was contained in the post as a whole, then it wouldn't have mattered. But your title had no relation that anybody could see with the post, and that's misleading.

[RogerFGay]

[ QUOTE ]
DesertFox said:
Roger, had you included the above comment of yours in the original post, so that there was a link between your title and what was contained in the post as a whole, then it wouldn't have mattered. But your title had no relation that anybody could see with the post, and that's misleading.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're getting better at bureacratic double-speak all the time. Soon you'll be a Democrat.

[RogerFGay]

[ QUOTE ]
Warlady said:
No disagreement Roger but that's not what you posted in your title. All I ask is that you not deceive. It's a good argument. Why ruin it?

[/ QUOTE ]

You may not like the truth, but it's still the truth.

[oracle]

[ QUOTE ]
RogerFGay said:
You guys are a riot. The actual case decision cited a range of constitutional problems, required for a state court to rule the guidelines null and void on the basis of federal statutes and regulations.

[/ QUOTE ]

None of that was referred to in the article. There is no reference to this in the article that you posted

That doesn't change the fact that judge did not declare the child support guidelines unconsitutional, inspite of your claim. in fact, the article explicitly states that he did not make such a declaration.

[oracle]

[ QUOTE ]
RogerFGay said:
You may not like the truth, but it's still the truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

The truth is that the thread title that you created was a lie and was in no way supported by the article that you posted.

Given your unrependant desire to distort the facts to advance your self-serving agenda, is it any wonder that you have no credibility?

[RogerFGay]

[ QUOTE ]
blakjaque shelac said:
In other words, we pulled a figure out of a hat to make feminists happy and imposed it in law, and made all considerations pertinent to a father's ability to at least support himself or meet his obligations completely discretionary. Ya, that sounds just. Not.


[/ QUOTE ]

The spin that's being put on the story is to ignore the constitutional problems. One guess is that the author of the newspaper article got the story filtered through a "child support enforcement" bureacrat. Every state waves their magic wands over the child support guidelines and claims they've fullfilled the review requirement. See Virginia for example:

<a href="http://www.fathermag.com/cgi-bin/scrape.cgi?http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/5910/FatherMag/Virginia_Increase1.htm">Virginia Child Support Panel to Suggest Increase
Special Interest Influence Apparent</a>

Georgia is not an exception. I'll tell you what the next move is, that the bureacracy would like to make, and exactly why they would like this issue to pass through the Georgia Supreme Court with an alternative to unconstitutionality. Obviously, the political fallout might be a problem but lookie here.

The majority of states (including Virginia) use what is called the Income Shares (http://www.fathermag.com/cgi-bin/scrape.cgi?http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/5910/FatherMag/Inc_Shares/Inc_Shares1.htm) model for their guideline. Georgia uses a simple percent of the payer's income (known as the Wisconsin or Soviet model -- because it was plagerized from Soviet family law by the once head of the Wisconsin Institute for Research on Poverty and included in the (Tommy Thompson's) Wisconsin Model for welfare reform). Income Shares guidelines violate the constitution for the same reasons the Georgia guideline does (except that it also violated one clause of the Georgia constitution that is unique to Georgia).

The next step the bureacrats would like to take, given that the percent model (in all states) is unconstitutional, is to use the Income Shares model. The primary advocate for the Income Shares guideline is the owner of a child support collection company, originally hired by HHS to write a report "advising states on the development of guidelines." His company keeps around one third of all the child support paid through his system, and he has exclusive contracts in several states for "collection" of child support. (Note: all payments through the system are reported as "collections" so that the states get corresponding federal funds for higher "collections." The vast majority of so-called "collections" are simply normal payments -- not past due -- that fathers have been ordered to pay through the system.

But, if the earlier ruling on the unconstitutionality of the current Georgia guidelines is upheld by the Georgia Supreme Court, they will not be able to apply the Income Shares model in Georgia either -- because it violates the constitution for the same reasons.

[RogerFGay]

[ QUOTE ]
oracle said:
Given your unrependant desire to distort the facts to advance your self-serving agenda, is it any wonder that you have no credibility?

[/ QUOTE ]

When you have no logical argument to make, attack the person. You do it just as poorly as everyone else. As you know, I know more about the subject then any other journalist. If there's something you don't understand about this subject, you should ask a question rather than getting arrogant and pig-headed.

[oracle]

[ QUOTE ]
RogerFGay said:
When you have no logical argument to make, attack the person. You do it just as poorly as everyone else. As you know, I know more about the subject then any other journalist. If there's something you don't understand about this subject, you should ask a question rather than getting arrogant and pig-headed.

[/ QUOTE ]


If you know so much, why do you resort to lying??????????

[blakjaque shelac]

The thing that really irks me in this subject is how father's wanting a fair shake has been painted as selfish fathers trying to get out of their responsibilities. Every discussion of this topic I've ever seen is laden with the same "aren't you terrible for not giving up everything for your kids" guilt trip that women's groups rejected decades ago for women who wanted to go to work.

I know men, grown men with decent jobs, who haveto live with their mothers because once they've paid non-tax-deductible child support plus all the other expenses that the courts don't / won't tkae into account, they have little left for themselves.

Everyone's hot to calculate the cost to mom of the extra living space she has top pay for for a child. But they're glad to ignore the fact that a dad also has to provide some living space thaqt only gets used once every two weeks, for example. Mom has to buy clothes, but if mom is at all un-cooperative (an extrememr arity, I know), dad ends up maintaining a child's wardrobe too. And if mom decides to up and move 200 iles away? Guess who gets stuck with 100% of teh travelling costs with no consideration? Dad. I know one guy who travels to Europe four times a year since his ex legally took his kid hostage overseas. Guess where he lives himself? In his brother's basement. I knew another who, for 5 years, travelled every other weekend between Canada and Boston - all at his expense, no deductions, no consideration.

Sure kids deserve to have their best interests cared for. But dads are not sub-human. They deserve to have their needs considered too.

[Timberwolf]

God forbid that a man be the subject of date rape and then have to pony up child support because "men can't BE raped"...riiiiiiiight.

[DesertFox]

There was no connection between your title and the body of your post. The connection came in your subsequent post, as I said.

But you won't listen to anybody about anything.

[RogerFGay]

PRESS RELEASE

Rockdale County Superior Court Judge Declares Georgia's
Child Support Guidelines Unconstitutional

February 10, 2003

On February 10, 2003, Judge Sidney L. Nation, Sr., Chief Judge of Rockdale
Superior Court, Rockdale County, Georgia, granted the motion of Laura Jean McFall to
declare the Georgia Child Support Guidelines Unconstitutional in a temporary order.

Judge Nation granted the motion based upon the Supremacy Clause or Article VI
of the Federal Constitution because Georgia has failed to comply with the Federal
mandate for the state to adopt and periodically revise the guidelines in line with current
economic data.

Judge Nation stated as follows:
&lt;blockquote&gt;
“The evidence before this Court is clear and uncontroverted that the State
of Georgia has not complied with federal requirements in setting and/or
revising its child support guidelines. It has not considered economic data
on the cost of raising children nor analyzed case data in reviewing the
guidelines as contemplated by 45 C.F.R. §302.56(e) and (h). Georgia’s
failure to comply wit the federal mandate makes the application of the
state’s child support guidelines inconsistent with federal law under the
Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which this Court is bound to
uphold.

Until such time as the General Assembly brings O.C.G.A. §19-6-
15 into compliance with the federal mandate pursuant to which it was
adopted, this Court stays the application of Georgia’s child support
guidelines and declines to apply the statute in future cases. Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s Motions for Modification of Child Support and Declaratory
Judgment are GRANTED.”
&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Submitted by:&lt;br&gt;
Daryl G. LeCroy, Esq.&lt;br&gt;
4609 Wieuca Rd.&lt;br&gt;
Atlanta, Georgia 30342&lt;br&gt;
404/256-0918

[RogerFGay]

SUPERIOR COURT OF ROCKDALE COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA
LAURA JEAN MCFALL *
*
PLAINTIFF, *
* CIVIL ACTION
v. * FILE NUMBER 02-CV-2287N
*
CHRISTOPHER WADE WARD *
*
DEFENDANT. *
________________________________________________
MOTION TO DECLARE GEORGIA’S CHILD SUPPORT
GUIDELINES UNCONSTITUTIONAL
COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, Laura Jean McFall, and moves this Honorable Court
for an Order declaring Georgia’s Child Support Guidelines unconstitutional and
awarding support based on the actual costs of raising the parties’ children, and, as
grounds therefore, would show that:
-1-The
Defendant currently has primary physical custody of the parties’ minor
children and the Plaintiff is currently under a support obligation for the minor children
based on O.C.G.A. § 19-6-15, (hereinafter, the “Guidelines”).
-2-Based
on the facts and for the reasons stated in the supporting brief to be
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, the Guidelines violate the
substantive due process and equal protection guarantees of the Constitution of the
United States of America and the Constitution of the State of Georgia. Accordingly, any
support award pursuant to the Guidelines is unlawful and must be revised in

[RogerFGay]

[ QUOTE ]
oracle said:
If you know so much, why do you resort to lying??????????

[/ QUOTE ]

See the two posts immediately above. It has now been proven absolutely, and beyond any shadow of a doubt whatsoever, that you are completely full of shit.

[Venus]

jacque, good post. I agree.

And not a lie, misnomer or misleading statement posited, so congratulations to you. You've proved that this subject can be discussed with passion and credibility.

[oracle]

[ QUOTE ]
RogerFGay said:
[ QUOTE ]
oracle said:
If you know so much, why do you resort to lying??????????

[/ QUOTE ]

See the two posts immediately above. It has now been proven absolutely, and beyond any shadow of a doubt whatsoever, that you are completely full of shit.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only thing that you have proven is that you have a bigger problem with the truth that Bill Clinton.

First of all, no where in the ruling did Judge Nation rule that the the guidelines were unconstitutional, he ruled that that state had failed to fulfill the mandate established by federal law.

Second, the ruling was a granting of a temporary order. This just means that the Judge feels that the plantiff was likey to win when her case actually went to trial. However, it is not the final ruling on this case, if the defendant's attorney presents a strong enough case, he could overturn his own ruling.

Let's look at that press release you posted. It states the following:

[ QUOTE ]
Judge Sidney L. Nation, Sr., Chief Judge of Rockdale ... granted the motion of Laura Jean McFall to declare the Georgia Child Support Guidelines Unconstitutional in a temporary order.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet according to the ruling (http://www.gachildsupport.org/JudgeNationsRuling.htm):

[ QUOTE ]
The Plaintiff seeks a downward modification of her child support and she seeks to have Georgia';s child support guidelines declared null and void due to the state's failure to follow the federal mandate for establishing the guidelines, as well as the state's failure to have them reviewed and amended after appropriate study required by the federal mandate.

[/ QUOTE ]

No where does the ruling indicated that her motion asked for the Georgia Child Support Guidelines to be declared unConstitutional. (In fact, it was the Defendant that asked for the Guidelines to be declared unConstitutional.)

At this point, it's quite clear who is packed with bovine feces. Maybe you should see a doctor about that.

[RogerFGay]

Oracle;

All we need to finish this battle off once and for all, is to know how you personally profit from the corruption.

[RogerFGay]

[ QUOTE ]
oracle said:
No where does the ruling indicated that her motion asked for the Georgia Child Support Guidelines to be declared unConstitutional.

[/ QUOTE ]


"MOTION TO DECLARE GEORGIA’S CHILD SUPPORT
GUIDELINES UNCONSTITUTIONAL
COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, Laura Jean McFall, and moves this Honorable Court
for an Order declaring Georgia’s Child Support Guidelines unconstitutional ..."

[Warlady]

Roger do you have a link to that press release?

[Venus]

Oracle, I took a look at Roger's stuff here. A 'Plaintiff' in the original caption of the case title is often (actually erroneously) called 'defendant' during adjudication of a motion filed later on in the same court case if that party is defending a motion brought by the original 'Defendant', and vice versa, although I don't see that happening here. Also, that part from the document that you quoted is just reciting summary of the matter before the court. The actual decision comes a bit later.


Here is the heart of the Court's decision:

"Georgia&amp;#8217;s failure to comply with the federal mandate makes the application of the state&amp;#8217;s child support guidelines inconsistent with federal law under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which this Court is bound to uphold.
Until such time as the General Assembly brings O.C.G.A § 19-6-15 into compliance with the federal mandate pursuant to which it was adopted, this Court stays the application of Georgia&amp;#8217;s child support guidelines and declines to apply the statute in future cases. Accordingly, Plaintiff&amp;#8217;s Motions for Modification of Child Support and Declaratory Judgment are GRANTED."

What Roger misrepresents (this time) is what the court actually decided. The court didn't declare GA's child support guidelines unconstitutional, per se. The court declared them to be out of compliance with fed regs (CFR) as those pertain to fed law status under the Supremacy Clause (of the U.S. Constitution) only. The Supremacy Clause, in this case, just means that the fed law has precedence over the state law and thus, GA takes a back seat and must clean up its act. This is not a declaration that GA's child support law is substantively or inherently unconstitutional - certain of GA's statutes, or their application, don't meet the fed law mandates and the feds trump the state - that's all that we have here. This's just more of Roger's wishful thinking and misrepresentation of cases and law in order to prove "he was right all along" when, in fact and as usual, no such thing has occurred.

[RogerFGay]

Law professor Venus has spoken. Don't forget, anyone who doesn't support her personal interests is "misrepresenting." That's in the constitution too. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon1.gif

[Daskid]

As you know, I know more about the subject then any other journalist. If there's something you don't understand about this subject, you should ask a question rather than getting arrogant and pig-headed.

He who praises himself over much, lacks credibility.

http://www.clipart.co.uk/clipart/dingbats2/small/green/smilies/12.gif

[Venus]

Listen up, asshole.

I'll tell you for the umpteenth time that most people here, including myself, agree with your overall assertion that fathers are treated very poorly by the child support/family law system.

You don't have to lie and twist the truth of events in order to win support for your overall position about child support and fatherhood.

And ridiculing those who basically support your main thesis, in spite of yourself, magnifies the stupidity of your actions and presentations inasmuch that even if you were twice as smart as you think you are you still wouldn't be half as smart as you need to be to understand this simple, basic fact.

[RogerFGay]

Winning Lawyer's Press Release (http://www.guidelineeconomics.com/files/LeCroyPressRelease_Nation.pdf)

[RogerFGay]

Daskid,

Are you going to take those nasty comments Venus threw at you. She starts by calling you an "asshole." Despite her obvious inability to discuss anything rationally, perhaps you should defend yourself.

[blakjaque shelac]

Hey, Rog,

I know it's crappy to be in a situation where this stuff becomes so important. Your personal investment in the subject is admirable and makes one sad that you are in a situation that made that necessary for you.

But everyone here is on your side, so take a step back, take a deep breath, and try to see this thread objectively. You're getting nasty with your friends because they said "Yes, Rog, we agree, but there's s small discrepancy between the thread title and the supporting document's content."

In-fighting and splintering is the number one cause of the men's movement's ineffectiveness. There was a time when men's natural beligerence was the main reason behind humanity's survival, taming a hostile environment and expanding civilization. But with few things left to tame, the security and technology provided by men now leaves society the leisure to take social organization to new heights - something more natural to women. Hence the rise of the women's movement and the difficulty in the men's movement to do the same.

[RogerFGay]

shelac

Step back, take a deep breath, read the Winning Lawyer's Press Release (http://www.guidelineeconomics.com/files/LeCroyPressRelease_Nation.pdf), and try, not matter how hard it is, not to allow yourself to get drawn into somebody's stupid ego trip. Your own personal ego problem, no matter how sorry I am of it and supportive of you, is not going to be solved by making goofy comments.

We all know that Warlady made the first rude smart alec remark in the thread. I feel sorry for people like you who get sucked in.