Skip to comments.More Possible Obamacare Fallout--Child Support Extended to Age 26
Posted on 08/09/2012 9:22:45 AM PDT by AbolishCSEU
Health Care Bill Closer to Reality, Child Support to be Extended to 26 by W.F. Price on June 28, 2012
The Supremes have set the stage for the full implementation of Obamacare, and yet people are not fully aware of the consequences of this enormous, bloated bill.
A provision of Obamacare that divorced fathers ought to pay close attention to is the extension of dependent children to age 26 (from Cornells law blog):
(Excerpt) Read more at the-spearhead.com ...
And just to pre-address the "stay married to a good woman and you won't have to worry about this" crowd, today's mostly narcissistic, feminazi Western women are fully trained in how to work the "women and children hit hardest" system/racket, especially in BLUE states. The comments in this article are fascinating.
This MAY make alot of SCUMBAG divorcing(sp?) fathers turn into John List.
Aren’t child support laws state based?
Although this article makes no sense, I guess it is implying that men are now going to have to pay child support until kids are 26????? Or is it saying something else?
In Kansas its to age 18 or when the child graduates from HS whichever is later except that if the obligee has held back the child in school which makes him/her graduate at the age of 19, and the obligor was not involved in the decision, then it ends at 18.
How are you going to pay child support if you don’t have a job.
There goes the black male vote.
How can you own a gun if you can’t pay your child support.
Yes but they tend to adopt other state’s policies; especially BLUE states as “progressive.” Also there are federal INCENTIVES for the highest amount of CS collected. So, for example, in NYS, if a father gets downsized in this economy, he can do an exercise in futility called going to court and filing for a downward modification. Which will take about three months to get on most court calendars. At that time a preliminary hearing will result and it will often be between 9 and 12 months before a downward mod is even considered.
That whole time the original CS amount from when he was employed continues to tick away on the meter and automatically puts him in arrears with penalties and interest should he not be able to have gainful employment almost immediately.
Downward mods are usually denied even though there is a substantial loss of income on the payors side (if said payor is a white male in particular; all other “classes” usually get cut a break).
My hubby pays $1000 a month (no arrears—he has never missed a penny)to his ex wife and earns $15 an hour. After NYS outrageous taxes, he’s lucky to bring home $200 a week and this will continue, under the age 26 guidelines, for the next 17 years—at which time he will be 61 years old. In the meantime she has remarried a guy who makes 80K a year and she earns more than my hubby does. I earn slightly more than his ex-wife.
Usually black males are not held to the same level of expectation as white males are; neither are the few females who are ordered to pay CS. Call it “Affirmative Action Based Child Support Collection”
I think you’re confused.
You are confusing what we know as court ordered Child Support with Obamanasty’s ACA that requires children up to age 26 te be covered under their parents insurance.
Those rules are getting rarer and rarer. Most moms know that if they can get their children on ADHD meds and labeled as “special needs” aka for the most part “lack of discipline,” they can collect CS well beyond 18 and past the age of 21. Therefore the “child” takes continual remedial grade school/high school non-acredited college courses well past 19 and can continue to collect CS and college funds from dear old dad. The community colleges in particular, LOVE this cash cow, by the way.
Well, lets see how this will go over with MEN, that Obunga is already having a problem with.. OH, BTW, if kids are minors until 26, then they shouldn’t be able to VOTE, DRINK, DRIVE, until they reach their majority, which Oblather says is now, 26... 20’somethins are going to love this..
It doesn’t actually “require” the kids to be covered to 26 does it? It requires the insurance co. to cover the child up to 26. It doesn’t require dad or mom to keep him on the policy.
I have been pointing out the evils of child support/family court power for years, I know two father friends whose lives were ruined when their wife/wives ran off with their kids to another state, and the other another country, then successful sued them for child support for kids who were basically kidnapped from them.
There is no justice or Due Process. In Maryland they suspend the fathers license over CS then arrest them for driving to the courthouse for hearings, or arrest them for not showing up at the court house for hearings.
I got fed up with Judge Judy because she is obsessed with CS.
After all, what isn't more "vote grabbing" then telling the soccer moms that they will all be able to collect that cash from dad up through Junior's 26th birthday? It is does not go unheeded that more and more adult "children" are living at home, playing xbox all day long instead of going out and working in an entry level job no matter how menial. You know, the things we used to do when we were 18.
There have already been a number of judges routinely ordering fathers to pay out-of-state or private school college tuition for their over-18 children, even when cheaper options were available.
Remember, Obamacare wasn’t going to “require” us to get rid of our doctors; it wasn’t going to “require” death panels; the penalty for not having insurance wasn’t a tax; the cost of insurance would go down and all other falacies that went along with it.
Nothing against extracurricular activities but when a child is doing nothing but kicking a soccer ball around (and tens of other activities) on dad's time, said child has zero bonding time and feel for dad's activities. Just another control mechanism.
She works at Child Protective Services so she made a phoney report and charged hubby with "age inappropriate work" for allowing a 11, 9 and 5 year old to empty their room's waste paper baskets. And it STUCK with her office cronies (he was placed on the NYS Child Abuse and Maltreatment Register) until I got it reversed after 6 months of paperwork and contacting local representatives. They reviewed the report and agreed that it was "unfounded" due to Malicious Mother syndrome. We no longer see them as they have "new" daddy now (google: Parental Alienation)
Oh Good God!...This is beyond ridiculous. Considering a third of all Americans are recieving some form of welfare from the government!
There is so much wrong with this feminist diatribe that I don't know where to start.
First, 90% of divorce filings in this country are either done by the wife, or by the husband after being pushed to it by the wife.
Second, Brinig and Allen note that the number one determinant of who files for divorce is who gets custody of the kids (with state-sanctioned cash and prizes). Child support is routinely drastically over-estimated, and custodial mothers are allowed to spend "child" support on anything they want, not just on necessary expenditures for the children.
Third, despite the misnomer of "no-fault" divorce, the husband is usually required to give half of his assets and over half of his income to a wife who divorced him through "no fault" of his own. This explains why 90% of divorces are pushed by women.
Fourth, the old "cheating and beating" excuse for divorcing men amounts to maybe 1/3rd of divorce justifications.
You might want to read Dalrock or my blog Christian Men's Defense Network to learn the truth. You might also want to read Baskerville's book Taken Into Custody. You are simply parroting the lines that statists and feminists use to forcible separate fathers from their children in order to usurp the role of fatherhood by the state.
Considering that brain studies show that the human brain does not fully mature until 25, this could be a good thing... especially if we all still lived on farms and had lots of chores to be done. Seriously, we could use some help painting the house this summer.... my youngest is off sitting by his apartment pool....
AbolishCSEU, that story is so common place now. “Child support” and “alimony” are simply welfare by other means, and most divorces are the result of feminist women desiring to free themselves from the moral constraints of traditional marriage, with state-sanctioned cash and prizes for so doing.
How someone can divorce another for “no fault” (as the laws now read) and then demand that the person she is divorcing gives her more than half his income, is absolutely astounding. Funny that none of these left-wing “social justice” advocates ever talk about that blatant injustice.
Or the court puts a man in jail for “contempt”. Been there, done that. After a heart attack and a failed business and a daughter who was living with me but whose mother insisted on the $500 a month to subsidize the SS “disability” she receives, not to mention the additional $200 a month she was getting for having a “minor child”. They do make it impossible to get a reduction and I did continue to pay the $250 a month I could afford, but it made no difference. It took me 96 days (on a 180 day sentence) to borrow enough money and get a hearing to get out of jail. I have the e-mail from the prosecutor confirming that I owe nothing and I will never delete it. It is admissible as evidence if ever needed.
Check the laws in New Jersey. In order to end Child Support, you have to file for Emancipation. It cost me an additional $5000 in attorney fees.
I didn’t know this until I had to renew my passport. I received a letter stating it was rejected, based on CS. It took me two months to get this sorted out. Finally, received my Passport and money back from New Jersey.
You should print that e-mail and frame it. Then you will never lose it! (in emergency break glass)
SOP in divorce decrees- whoever has a job and/or insurance has to keep the kid(s) on their policy.
It is unfortunately a little-known fact that family/divorce courts are considered legally exempt from the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The reason is that they are statutorily classified as "courts of equity," rather than "courts of law." And courts of equity are assumed to be exempt from the restrictions placed on courts of law.
The result is that divorce court judges, many of whom are crooked and/or hard-core radical feminists, routinely violate Constitutionally protected rights to free speech, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to due process, right to habeus corpus, right to presumption of innocence, etc.
In fact, in several states, men accused of not paying child support or alimony are denied their right to an attorney and summarily thrown into prison without trial. Good luck ever getting out if you can't contact a lawyer.
Sadly, both parties support this system in part because it channels a lot of money to people with political connections, and in part because going after so-called "dead-beat dads" appeals to female voters.
Right on, my youngest two boys are 25, 24 this year, they are going to be really giddy about handing me the keys to their new cars, that they paid for..
This will piss them off once again, because they both had to face down the Satan Disciple Professors, at their prospective Commie Universities..
This should get the vote of any NON-brain dead male in America regardless of minority or majority group.
Great parenting, carlo3b! Kick them out of the nest, with love! My dad did it to me at age 21, and I'm a female! I had to keep my husband from putting the pillow under the ass of ours. Our son earned his own way through the doctorate. Thank you, Dad, where you are! Wish more American kids had dads....
I been telling alot of men/fathers in the minority community alot of Obama past robots, about this and it’s working. Obama is losing alot of men votes.
I even made a alittle video on this and the impacts it will have on millions.
I did the best I could, but it cuts to the point ?
Psychologists generally agree that narcissism is higher among men than women.