10 Ways to Improve Family Law Courts

The current model liable for governing family law courts is extremely outdated and archaic.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 aren't burdened big support or alimony are forced to figure two jobs to remain afloat. Below, I even have 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.

1. Remove presumptions: When a person and woman enter into a courtroom, the presumption is that ladies 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 Security Act: This law states that the federal will give $2 to the government, 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 youngsters, 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 be severely downsized.

4. Give equal representation: Under the constitution, in legal code, defendants are entitled to representation albeit they can't afford an attorney themselves. In support of 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 Brisbane are very severe; to not mention a toddler being involved. If the courts truly believe 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 simply 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 offer everyone the simplest deal. Happy parents= Happy children.

5. Build up Non-custodial Parents: consistent with my research, parents who make under then national medium income ($42K) per annum, are considered at "high risk" for going into arrears. Fathers or (NCP's) who make under $42K per annum should tend the choice to finish job programs in lieu of sanctions. If the courts offer programs that will help the paying parent reach that benchmark of $42K per annum, 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 would like to recover owed support payment payments. However, don't suspend an individual's driver's license and don't incarcerate them. By doing either, you severely limit that person's ability to earn an income. They get caught into a cycle of jail, accumulation of debt, and a destroyed resume. nobody wants to rent someone who features a record. And if you reside during a city that has poor public transportation, getting back and forth to jobs can become extremely burdensome, thus limiting job opportunities. Debtor's prisons were outlawed for a reason. to rework someone's child into a source of someone's imprisonment may be a crime unto itself. A husband who doesn't provide for his child is left alone by the government, however, a bachelor is subject to discrimination. determine 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 ready to continue 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 makes the choice 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 particular point, determined by law, a person should be ready to dissolve his desire to be a parent even as a lady can. Many will argue that it'll create more welfare-dependent mothers, however, we must consider many things. The federal can spend 1 trillion dollars on unconstitutional wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet they complain a few welfare spending that takes up but 5% of the Federal Budget? Also, who says the govt has got to distribute food stamps within the first place? If the federal can afford to offer states $2 for each $1 they collect in support payment, then they will afford to feed and house poor people. The Federal Reserve System 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 rich person, maybe even get HIS house too! With the magic of "no-fault divorces", someone can literally get pregnant by a man of means, divorce him for no reason, and take half his assets for the subsequent 18 years. Caps got to be developed supported cost of living within the state, in order that divorces aren't incentivized for those trying to find 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 tend prepaid cards that are trackable. Housing, Food, daycare, school-supplies, medical expenses, clothes,... this stuff 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. an alternative choice might be to use the leftover money at the top of each month and have it automatically enter a fund for the kid and/or to be applied to arrears.

9. Create a toddler Visitation Enforcement Agency: Parental Alienation may be a HUGE epidemic. Fathers need to spend thousands of dollars in legal fees to urge basic access to their children with no help from the state. If there's to be a toddler support enforcement agency, there must be a workplace 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 ascertain their kids due to expensive legal fees, phony 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 the agreeable plan. If the oldsters cannot communicate properly or the order is later deemed insufficient, then the judge can step in and provides his own calculated orders. My point is, give the oldsters one last chance to unravel things without government intrusion!

These are just a couple of ideas I even have . this concept that we must punish and throw people in jail only works on those rare individuals who CAN afford support payment yet prefer 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.