Jim Untershine, GZS of LB, 10-08-02

California has the most outrageous child support guideline in the nation demanding 25% of a parent's net income for 1 child, 40% for 2, and 50% for 3.

Using the child support calculators, provided by AllLaw.com, the amount of child support demanded by all states can be compared by choosing a hypothetical case. The case that follows is identical to "Case D" described in the US House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, GREENBOOK in support of the interstate child support guidelines (Table 8-2) reported by Pirog, Klotz, and Buyers from the Institute of Family and Social Responsibility (FASR)

Case D:

Figure One shows the child support guidelines for 1, 2, and 3 children using the child support calculator from AllLaw.com using only the incomes from "Case D" described above. (You must pay to find out how much you will owe in Vermont and New Hampshire, which eliminates these states from this analysis).

Across all states the median guidelines where: 1 child (16%), 2 child (24%) and 3 child (29%)

Across all states the highest guidelines where: Massachusetts 1 child (31%), California 2 child (40%) and California 3 child (50%)

Across all states the lowest guidelines where: North Carolina 1 child (10%), Wyoming 2 child (16%) and North Carolina 3 child (18%)

Figure Two shows the 2 child guideline presented to the Ways and Means Committee by FASR using all details outlined in "Case D" described above. The AllLaw.com 2 child guideline is subtracted from the FASR 2 child guideline to determine the error between them. For example: FASR reported California demanding 18% of an NCPs net income for 2 children while AllLaw.com reported 40%, yielding an error of 22%.

Child support guidelines vary from state to state, and are derived by many strange and disturbing methods. Rest assured that there is no scientific approach that is currently used that is not derived from opinions from people who are in no position to know the truth. There is no system by which actual data is collected to measure the cost of raising children.

Many states require assistance in determining the amount of child support that they will force a parent to pay. There are companies and individuals that offer to help states maximize the profits that are paid by parents and the federal government in implementing their "Family Law money machine". For example Maurine Pirog-Good of FASR (Bloomington, IN) has helped Alaska with their child support guideline, while Robert Williams of Policy Studies Inc (PSI) (Denver, CO) has helped 49 states, Canada, Australia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.

These independent entities are free to

Instruct states that it is essential to maximize the cash flow between parents in order to reap false profits from parents and the federal government.

Actively engage in subverting the federal laws that provide protection to NCPs and advising the elimination of due process in implementing a child support guideline that limits rebuttabillity to winning custody of the children.

Conduct accounting audits for state CSE agencies of the Executive Branch as well as conduct the four-year review of that states child support guideline for the Judicial Branch.

Every states child support guideline should be the same as the TANF amount for any particular family in each state.

The outrageous child support guidelines that are imposed on parents across the nation are being completely hidden from the Legislative Branch. Our elected officials are powerless to identify the common denominator regarding welfare reform with this type of deception. It is no wonder that Congress shakes a finger at deadbeats in California for not paying 18% of their pay for 2 children when, in reality, these victims of fraud are demanded to actually pay 40%.

The outrageous child support guidelines that are imposed on parents across the nation are enforced by state CSE agencies who operate under the color of federal law (USC 42 666) depriving the rights and privileges of NCPs across counties, across states, and across oceans. NCPs are forced to endure the "Family Law Stigmata" as a result of independent entities poisoning the antidote to the welfare disease provided by the federal government in the state's exploitation of children for money.