In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status: 



	Rex Ballard - Director of Electronic Distribution
	http://cnj.digex.net/~rballard


> Wow!  A Silver Bullet?
No, a wooden stake to drive into father's hearts.
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 00:40:33 -0600 (CST)
> From: Andy Duncan 
> To: John Knight 
> Subject: Child Support Unconstitutional
> 
> This is one of a friends better ideas!  Check your local statutes to see if
> you are eligable!
> 
> Andy
> 
> 
> >
> >ANGRY MEN NEED TO MAKE HEADLINES.  -
> >
> >What about a national campaign of appeals challenging the unconstitutional
> use of guidelines mandated on the states by federal order, and established
> solely by the judiciary of each state.  The requirement to establish and
> follow a guideline exceeds the constitutional power of the federal
> government over states.
> >Amendment 10. - RESERVATION OF POWERS TO STATES 
> >	The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
> prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or
> to the people.  
> >
> >The guidelines of Kansas and Missouri (all states) are established by the
> judiciary.  Note they stem from the Rules of the Supreme Court.  
> >Administrative Order No. 83
> >Re: 1992 KANSAS CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES
> >I.  USE OF THE GUIDELINES
> >	The Kansas Child Support Guidelines are the basis for establishing and
> reviewing child support orders in the district courts in Kansas, including
> cases settled by agreement of the parties.  Judges and hearing officers must
> follow the guidelines.  The Net Parental Child Support Obligation is
> calculated by completing the Child Support Worksheet (Appendix I).
> >	The Court shall consider all relevant evidence presented in setting the
> amount of child support, including but not limited to the Child Support
> Adjustments set forth in Section E of the Worksheet. The calculation of the
> respective parental child support obligations in Line D.9. of the Worksheet
> is a rebuttable presumption of a reasonable child support order.  However,
> the Court shall complete Section E of the Child Support Worksheet listing
> all relevant Child Support Adjustments.  The Child Support Adjustments shall
> constitute the written criteria for deviating from the rebuttable
> presumption.  If the Court finds, in the best interests of the child, that
> the amount of child support as calculated on Line D.9. of the Worksheet to
> be unjust or inappropriate in a particular case, the Court shall apply the
> Child Support Adjustments to modify the child support amount.  The Court, in
> using Child Support Adjustments to modify the child support amount, shall
> use Section E of the Worksheet to make written findings or specific findings
> on the record, which shall be included in the journal entry, as to the
> reasons for any deviation from the Net Parental Child Support Obligation on
> Line D.9.

What this means is that your ex can nickel and dime you to death for 
things like Day Care, Braces, Unusual Medical Expenses (Therapists for 
mother and children), Health Insurance, Life insurance, car payments, and 
even band uniforms.  My child support "should have been" $540/month, but 
using these "adjustments", the creeped up to $1500 - on a $3000/month 
income while paying $1200 in taxes, fica, and medicaid.  This did not 
include the $300/month minimum payments on existing debts.  Leaving me 
with "ZIP - ZERO - NADA".

I asked for two provisions, one was - no more increases.  the other was,
that I could deduct the cost of health-insurance from the basic "package".
If I hadn't done that, the "Adjustments" would have taken $6000 of 
$6000/month too.


From rballard@cnj.digex.net Mon Feb 26 14:25:20 1996