To get an accurate idea of how fair/unfair these changes are, the numbers would need to be run. The numbers would need to be run on a pre-change basis and a post change basis; and it would be nice to run the pre/post analysis on different tiers of income pairs. Low income dad, high income mom; medium income dad, high income mom, etc; these different analyses would have to be compared to the standard of living the each party had before change.

Also, another couple of things that would be nice to know before a policy decision was made: 1) how much does it take to raise a kid, and, 2) when does the rate of return diminish, the effect on the well being of the child of the next dollar sent to the custodial parent, so that giving the custodial parent more money doesn’t make sense.

Doing these kinds of analysis would help to define whether or not the child support changes made are good or bad.

Later,

B

I am weeks away from Bankruptcy and have been unemployed for two years.

Since the divorce, eight years ago, i was required to pay $700 per month ($56K).

I have paid the custodial parent ( who makes over 100K a year) $91,000 in Child Support. That does not include several trips to Colorado and one to England with my daughter. Also, i hardly ever get to see her. Now - the HFS is saying i owe $69,000 for the last eight years.

I need help fighting these guys - perhaps a lawyer (I can't afford one)? My life has been ruined - i have no savings now. Has my constitutional rights of innocent until proven guilty been violated?

I have sent them documents of every check i have written - i have them all. They are still denying they are wrong and proceeding with enforcement. They refuse to show how they came up with their figures.

I blame child support policy for making the life of my daughter a living hell for her entire 13 years (so far). My ex understands that the guidelines reward her more child support for every hour she can keep my daughter out of my custody. Consequently, she has dedicated her life to frustrating visitation, trying to alienate my daughter from me, all in the hopes that I'll just give up and give her sole custody, so she can get the maximum Child Support award.

She wants me to be a "pay and stay away" Dad, because that's most profitable for her.

Women who defend child support guidelines will say "he just wants custody so he can get out of child support." I call BS -- if a woman can make such an accusation, then why can't the converse be true? Well, I believe it is. Unscrupulous mothers like my daughter's mom, sadly, will try to MINIMIZE father child contact just to receive MORE child support!

Can't people see the built-in problem? Child support policy provides financial incentive to divorce and single-parent custody. Child support policy HARMS children.

Looking at child support guidelines in my state, it's clear that child support is nothing more than disguised alimony. There is no relationship to actual costs to raise a child(ren), which I have 16 years of experience with (including 16 years of financial records) to the tables that my state publishes...I have no doubt that is the case in Mass...and probably just got worse. How is it in the new age of enlightenment and justice for all, fathers can continue to be ignored ?

Child support is just indentured servitude for men. Husbands are nothing more than extensions of women's wallets these days. There is no respect for dads, and consequently young people have little respect for society or the law. Far from being advantaged in comparison to women, the modern American male is a second class citizen, who belong in the home just as long as his wife says he does. After that his rights, paternity and income all belong to her.

My boyfriend (can't afford to get married) makes 30K a year as an HVAC tech (that's with overtime in upstate NY). His ex-wife has a nice gov't job and makes about 40K; she recently got married to new hubby who makes about 60K a year. There are three minor children from the marriage. My boyfriend pays over 12K right off the top to his ex in child support. after taxes he has approx a whopping 9K to live on. So basically he can't support himself and has to live with someone who can provide shelter, food and clothing.

When the children come over (if they aren't persuaded to do otherwise by his ex) they expect the same standard of living as at mom's house. Namely eating out every day, lots of mall shopping sprees, the latest gadgets and toys. We are unable to "buy" their love like the way Mommy does. (sigh)

I oppose this on two different fronts. First as a rational human, I fail to understand how one side can be allowed to hold all the cards in a so-called just system. Why is it that the father only has a paying responsibility and no rights attached to it? Yes, fathers should pay for THEIR OWN (and I cannot stress that enough) children. BUT, there is no reason to expect the mother or anyone else to rationally decide how much is to be acquired from the father. At the least, the custodial parent must be required to turn in the account of expenditure for the CS received. Also, there must be penalties to falsifying or fluffing such accounts as with any other accounting fraud. If you are going to invite govt into your family, invite it both ways. Also, why is it that non-custodial parents are required to pay a fixed and rarely lowered expenditure towards their children (although - currently it goes to the Custodial parent), when all other parents can and do choose to reduce expenditure on their kids depending on financial situation?

On the second front, as a libertarian, I must ask what right does the govt have to dictate how people should share their responsibilities? In a dictatorship, or any other authoritarian system, that would be understandable, but in a free society like the USA claims to be, what right does the govt have to interfere in people's personal lives? Although, I do not start my opposition to CS from CS, but rather from birth registration, (govt created and defined) marriage contract (as opposed to religious and personal contract), education etc.

Since when does "what's best for the child" supersede the 4th Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law?

At every turn the feminist movement has gained privileges for women at the expense of basic constitutional rights of men.

But let's not quibble about the little things. Constitutional rights for men? How abstract!

The end result here will be that more men cannot pay. Men will be less likely to want to have children and get married. Men will be more likely to skip town if they think they cannot pay. And most importantly Massachusetts' taxpayers will be flipping the bill on child support enforcement and incarceration of even more men.

Apparently 7 million men in prison isn't enough for them.

Oh and did I forget welfare payments? Yeah women are far more likely to receive welfare and interestingly they contribute the least to the tax base. If they are so equal then why can't they support themselves? Men who are custodial fathers are far less likely to be on welfare than a mother.

The best part is that more mothers will be willing to divorce from their husbands given the new windfall they think they will be getting.

And I'm OK with that. The world needs more strippers, landscapers, and roofers. And since children raised in single parent households (primarily the mother's) are more likely to be promiscuous, less likely to go to college, and for males find it harder to navigate the male dominance hierarchy will also be more likely to engage in criminal activity then this will surely be the result in Mass.

It's also interesting how society keeps expecting men to do more and pay more but at the same time gives a disproportionate amount of resources to women to encourage and pay for college educations. What is the long term pay off of the state paying for a woman's education and then she quits her job after a year and has children and never comes back?--Phail!

But I digress. Every time the state makes life harder for men or finds a way to incarcerate them it only brings the state closer to failure. Why? Because it is and has always been men who support the state and give the state its power. Women have the power because they have a majority vote. But when the crap hits the fan it will be men who will be expected to pull the weight and I can tell you I won't lift a freakin' finger for this society.

Let women be disposable. Yeah right!

Illinois has a similar model to the one that Massachusetts is planning on implementing and I can argue that what Fathers & Families says is true. In Illinois, our child support guidelines are based on a fixed percentage of the non-custodial parent's income. Virtually no consideration is given to the needs of the non-custodial parent's household or to the already existing income that the custodial parent earns. In my case, my ex-wife earns $22K a year tax free and that's on top of her $60K+ income she earns normally. For the first few years, I had to live in a two bedroom apartment with my three children when they visited. Meanwhile, in the first three years following the divorce, I watched as she had corrective eye surgery, bought an expensive new television, new camera equipment, new furniture, remodeled her house, and a new SUV. Clearly a windfall profit.

Federal law requires that the states try to take into account the cost of supporting children when they make their own guidelines.

Massachusetts so called "task force" simply ignored the law. The task force just pulled the numbers out of thin air. It's embarrassing that the head of the task force is able to say on the record that he thinks these new way-higher numbers will be good for children. He has no way of knowing what the impact of the higher numbers will be.

He's a lawyer, and what he means is, "These higher guidelines will allow my brother divorce lawyers to offer more money to their female clients. The size of the goody-bag of dollars will be much bigger for women. It may be bad for fathers, who will have to live in their parents' basements. But it will be good for the legal industry of which I am a part. Thus I declare it to be good for children. The subject is closed, and no whining will be permitted from anyone. We are taking the money and you all are shutting up. Get it?"

I am not a father being crushed by child support or denied visitation - I am a son who was denied my father by the vindictive anger of my mother who BRAGGED about using child support to "get even" with my father.

Several problems are built right into the child support apparatus:

1) Matching federal funds make it a FINANCIAL incentive to collect as much child support because the state receives $.66 of a dollar for each dollar collected.

2) No corresponding enforcement (due IMO to the lack of monetary incentive and the apathy of the courts) is pursued for visitation. While both money and love of both parents are needed, only one gets addressed, and for the most cynical reasons.

Were it that 'it was for the children' then the love of a non-custodial parent, denied to a child, therefore harming a child, then visitation would be as enforced and denial of visitation punished as harshly.

3) The child support is completely unaccountable. It would be a simple matter for each divorcing couple to set up a child support account. With this account would be a debit card. The non-custodial parent would be able to see the account transations but not withdraw the money, while the custodial parent would have easy access (debit card) to the money. Transparency is key to making sure 'child support' does not become 'mommy support'.

4) Massachusetts currently gives the parents of foster children "X" amount of dollars. Apparently this is enough for the NEEDS of the child. Children have wants, but those are not needs. Parents (both custodial and non-custodial) WANT to give their children many things, but wants are not needs.

If the Commonwealth of Massachusetts deems "X" amount of dollars a month given to foster parents "enough" and not "cruel", "stingy", "abandonment" or "depriving" then it follows that citizens who give that same amount are not making their children lack for their NEEDS (not wants).

Our servants apparently want us to do what they are unwilling to do, unable to do (without penalty, unlike non-custodial parents), or deem to be uneeded.

I was denied my father's pressence for 2 decades (when I got to be 18 I had been so poisoned against him I had no interest), and none of the "child support" was apparently saved for my college.

There is a reason - a lack of accountability for the money gained in "child support" and a complete lack of enforcement in visitation ORDERS given by the court.

Children need a parent more than a check.

L. Steven Beene II

For the record: the average cost of raising a child in a middle-class family is around $260,000 (this includes day-care and some college). I don't know if this number would be much different in Mass, but it's a decent starting point.

Support is paid for 21 years, and BOTH parents are responsible for the child so:
$260,000 / 2 parents / 21 years / 12 months = $515 per month

$515 per month is the share that a non-custodial parent should strive to contribute for his child.

Now let's run the guideline worksheet for a typical scenario:
- father (no custody), income $50,000
- mother (custody), no income

According to the worksheet, the non-custodial parent should pay $1,000 / month to the custodial parent. This is TWICE HIS SHARE OF THE COST OF RAISING THE CHILD! He is basically assuming the total cost of the child, instead of his 50% share!

Now let's run the guideline worksheet again, this time with a high-earning non-custodial parent with an income of $150,000:
The child support order would be $2,500 per month! That's right, the non-custodial parent will receive enough money to cover 50% of the cost of raising FIVE CHILDREN! And will not have to provide proof of how the money is spent!

Now, please tell me: is this child support, or is it really alimony or welfare?
And if we think as a society that single mothers need welfare, then how about capping father's responsibility at $500 / month (which is 50% of the cost of raising a child), and moving the remaining account where it belongs: make the rest the responsibility of the WELFARE STATE!