The current model to blame for governing family law courts is extremely outdated and archaic. It's governed by a 1950's chauvinistic view towards marriage and parentage. Men are expected to be emotionless, robotic breadwinners whereas women are expected to be keepers of the house and youngsters. Women now work. The economy is in shambles whereas even those that don't seem to be burdened gravid support or alimony are forced to figure two jobs to remain afloat.
Below, Lina Franco Esq got proposed 10 ways to drastically improve fairness within the family law courts which are more reflective of our modern culture and realities present in our economy.
Lina Franco Lawyer is offering services keeping in mind the sole interest of the clients. Services offered by us are highly appreciated by the clients as we are offering the most transparent deals and follow ethical business practice
1. Remove presumptions: When a person and woman enter a courtroom, the presumption is that girls are already the custodial parents who deserve support payment. The courts should presume that both parents are equally shared in their rights. There should be a presumption of 50/50 shared custody with no mandate of kid support payments.
2. Repeal Title IV-D of The social insurance Act: This law states that the centre will give $2 to the regime, for each $1 they collect in support payment payments. This creates an automatic incentive for courts to line high child-support measurements. The additional money awarded to the states also doesn't benefit the kids, it goes into "slush" funds. there's no basis for the state to receive profits in these cases. It creates a conflict of interest.
3. Limit the kid Support Enforcement Agency's Power: CSEA administrators shouldn't be acting as judges. they ought to NOT be issuing and calculating support payment orders. they need no authority to listen to special circumstances, to forgive the debt, or to deviate from normal guidelines. it's costing taxpayers over 3 billion dollars a year to staff and maintain these agencies which probably shouldn't exist, to start with, or should a minimum of being severely downsized.
4. Give equal representation: Under the constitution, in legal code, defendants are entitled to representation whether or not they can not afford an attorney themselves. In support payment cases, the state may be a profiting party that has vested interests. The petitioning party is backed by the kid Support Enforcement Agency with incentives being paid to the state via Title IV sec D award payments. While support payment cases are technically considered "civil cases", the repercussions and complexity of family law are very severe; to not mention a toddler being involved.
If the courts truly believe in the simplest interest of the kid, they're going to seek to properly represent and protect both parents. Fathers who feel protected and thought of are far more likely to just accept their duties if they do not feel so scared and alienated from the method. this is often why I think both parents should have court-appointed advocates to present everyone the simplest deal. Happy parents= Happy children.
5. Build up Non-custodial Parents: Per my research, parents who make under then national medium income ($42K) annually, are considered at "high risk" for going into arrears. Fathers or (NCP's) who make under $42K p.a. should tend to the choice to finish job programs rather than sanctions. If the courts can give programs that may help the paying parent reach that benchmark of $42K p.a., they're going to become "low risk" at falling into default.
6. Remove Crippling Sanctions: The courts can garnish their wages, seize their bank accounts, liquidate their properties, do whatever you wish to recover owed support payment payments. However, don't suspend somebody's driving licence and don't incarcerate them. By doing either, you severely limit that person's ability to earn an income. They get caught in a cycle of jail, accumulation of debt, and a destroyed resume. nobody wants to rent someone who contains a record. And if you reside in a very city that has poor public transportation, getting back and forth to jobs can become extremely burdensome, thus limiting job opportunities.
Debtors prisons were outlawed for a reason. to remodel someone's child into a source of someone's imprisonment may be a crime unto itself. A spouse who doesn't provide for his child is left alone by the govt., however, a bachelor is subject to discrimination. sorting out why the parent is unable to stay up with the order and within the "best interest of the child" make it easier for the parent to be able to carry on with the order!
7. Let both parents opt-out: Women can legally murder their children via abortion and because of "Safe Haven Laws", they will also drop off their children at Fire-stations or Police Departments with no questions asked. a lady who decides that she isn't emotionally or financially able to be a mother is given the choice to settle on parentage. Men are told to suck it up or face prison. The parameters found in states that allow abortion, should also apply to men.
Up until a specific point, determined by law, a person should be ready to dissolve his desire to be a parent even as a girl can. Many will argue that it'll create more welfare-dependent mothers, however, we must consider many things. The central can spend 1 trillion dollars on unconstitutional wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet they complain a couple of welfare spending that takes up but 5% of the Federal Budget? Also, who says the govt must distribute food stamps in the first place? If the federal can afford to convey states $2 for each $1 they collect in support payment, then they'll afford to feed and house poor people. The central bank printed up billions to bail out corporations, why not bail out the people?
8. Cap amounts and Spending: It's outrageous that a custodial parent can claim $10,000 a month just by getting pregnant BY a magnate, even perhaps get HIS house too! With the magic of "no-fault divorces", someone can get pregnant by a rich man, divorce him for no reason, and take half his assets for the following 18 years. Caps have to be developed to support the value of living within the state so that divorces don't seem to be incentivized for those searching for a fast lottery ticket! Additionally, the paying parent must have tools available to carry the custodial parent in charge of how his money is being spent. Custodial parents should incline prepaid cards that are trackable.
Housing, Food, daycare, school supplies, medical expenses, clothes,... these items would be acceptable charges. However, if the custodial parent used the cardboard to shop for alcohol, vacations, TV's, and other non-essential items, those charges would be disputed. This card system could create an argument that the custodial parent needs extra money and/or less. another choice may be to use the leftover money at the top of each month and have it automatically enter a monetary fund for the kid and/or to be applied to arrears.
9. Create a toddler Visitation Enforcement Agency: Parental Alienation could be a HUGE epidemic. Fathers should spend thousands of dollars in legal fees to induce basic access to their children with no help from the state. If there's to be a baby support enforcement agency, there has to be a place of work or hotline for non-custodial parents to call if they're actively being denied access. In many cases, fathers go years without having the ability to determine their kid's thanks to expensive legal fees, phoney restraining orders, and cooperative mothers.
10. Mediation first- Court Second: Before a mother and father ever see a judge, both parties should be required to attend mediation first. Have a worker use the kid support model as a start line, then allow each parent to debate and negotiate with each other and are available to a pleasant plan. If the oldsters cannot communicate properly or the order is later deemed insufficient, then the judge can step in and provide his calculated orders. My point is, give the oldsters one last chance to resolve things without government intrusion!
These are just some ideas Lina Franco Esq got. This idea that we must punish and throw people in jail only works on those rare individuals who CAN afford support payment yet value more highly to hide their assets or use trickery. However, most of those laws, albeit well-intended, find yourself turning the middle-class and poor into criminalized debt slaves.
For further information, you can read the blog of Lina Franco Esq and also you can follow her for more updates on Twitter and Crunchbase -
Twitter - https://twitter.com/liinafranco
Crunchbase - https://www.crunchbase.com/person/lina-franco-1753
