Thanks.
Project for the Improvement of Child Support Litigation Technology (PICSLT) was an in-depth exploration into the science of child support calculations. The study began rather informally in 1989, on the eve of implementation of what was then a new federal mandate for use of welfare system style formulae extended to all child support cases in the United States. Although very rigid and presumptively applied, the formulae were referred to as child support “guidelines.”
It was easy to see that the new formulae were not producing reasonable child support amounts. The amounts produced were (and still are) arbitrarily high – and not just a little. With such a large population affected, and the effect being great, one could expect a range of reactions, including some in the extreme – particularly when one considers the context, the naturally emotionally-charged, psychologically traumatizing circumstances of many divorces involving children. News reports quickly followed as judges were shot and men barricaded themselves in houses with hostages. Fathers throwing powder-filled condoms at the British Prime Minister and climbing bridges in Batman costumes protesting custody arrangements are quite reserved by comparison.
Feminist groups - that treat the personal as political - complained that these “terrorists” were receiving undue attention. The issue did not then simply fall off the radar – the mainstream media was drawn into an intense decade-long propaganda campaign in support of the reforms, most remembered by the term “deadbeat dads.” Newspapers still occasionally run promotional articles for “child support enforcement,” the pork-barrel program responsible for creating the formulae and pushing for mandatory use in Congress along with ever-spiraling budget requests. Reports of men being thrown in jail because they were unable to pay (payments ordered could be more than their take-home pay) and suicides of fathers who were left unable to feed themselves were pushed to the fringe. Men who ran became the propagandists’ poster-children to be hunted down by armed police.
In hindsight, it might seem naive that PICSLT began with the view that the problem could be addressed by a technically intense study of child support decision-making. Strong hints were laid in the written material on the new guidelines – principally from Robert Williams, PhD, a child support enforcement entrepreneur, and his promotional firm Policy Studies Inc. The level of competence in the work could have easily led to failure of a sophomore in science or engineering. Could it be that the work was simply dishonest? There was still some room for doubt. Those “scientists” favoring the new guidelines were social scientists whose experience in statistical profiling was a far cry from the serious art and science of technical design. At the very least, they were probably unaware just how obvious their errors were to people with higher levels of competence.
An important impetus for further study was the realization that child support decision-making had never been treated as a scientific subject. This was (and is) of practical importance given the federal mandate and any such work could continue to be of value even if the law is repealed. Prior to its awkward treatment by the collection industry, child support formulae had been developed independently by judges and by lawyers in bar association committees. Collection industry guidelines had been promoted as the first based on “science.” The fact that they were, at best, based on very poor science seemed not to matter so much because they were the first.
Some of the pre-reform traditional work was quite good, but had only been presented as “engineering” work based on requirements of existing laws. Judges of the era opposed rigid use of child support formulae, stating emphatically that the number and complexity of variables requires case-by-case determinations. The term “child support guideline” was accurate then. Deviations from the formulae were common, owing to differences in circumstances not accounted for in the formulae, while they still promoted reasonable uniformity in decisions.
The first technical report from PICSLT was published in April 1990 as an investigation by Intelligent Systems Research Corporation into the nature of the problem and possibilities for addressing it. Within two years, two more detailed technical papers were produced; further characterizing the problem and demonstrating technical flaws in the underlying math and logic of guidelines in use. A concept paper was submitted to the national State Justice Institute and the first public presentation on was given at the Sixth Annual Conference of the National Council for Children’s Rights.
Expert testimony was given in a critical federal case, P.O.P.S v. Gardner. Parents Opposed to Punitive Support was an organization composed of divorced fathers and second families in Washington State whose children were not receiving welfare and were not in any immediate danger of becoming welfare dependent. Consistent with the whole divorce population, the mothers had in most cases initiated the divorce and many had remarried. They argued, among other things, that arbitrarily high child support determinations imposed an unacceptable burden against their own second families.
Experts appearing for the state included Robert Williams, whose design the state had implemented, and Notre Dame economics professor David Betson, who was nationally known for popular child cost estimates and often consulted on state guidelines. The two admitted that their cost estimates – the primary determinate of guideline results – were not based on cost data, but primarily on obscure logic preferred by those doing the estimations. Child support orders determined by the guidelines were / are arbitrary. Williams’ own report pointed out the intent to increase child support orders to two and a half times what they had been under established law.
It can be said that the P.O.P.S. case was decided before it was decided. Evidence above, and that prepared at the request of P.O.P.S., demonstrated guideline results are arbitrary and punitive. They are an arbitrary government intrusion into personal life. This provided a basis for declaring the guidelines unconstitutional. The court however, reclassified marriage and family issues as “social policy,” eliminating the application of basic civil rights tests. Social policy is a classification given to welfare entitlements, which are strictly politically controlled. In making this change, the court protected the new system of federal pork at the expense of civil rights. This reclassification would ultimately lead to the legal destruction of marriage and family as we knew it.
PICSLT’s work continued to June 2001 with a series of technical papers, conference presentations, Congressional testimony, and testimony to state guideline review committees. (list) A second wind was created with a breakthrough that transformed the work from analysis and engineering into basic science. “Just and appropriate,” has been expressed in mathematical terms under the title “Child Support Decision Theory.” Tutorials in Child Support Decision Theory are available on the web.
Roger F. Gay was the principle researcher in Project for the Improvement of Child Support Litigation Technology and began writing for MensNewsDaily in 2002. He has written numerous articles on the child support issue, published at MND and elsewhere.
Stumble It!Rate this post:
(6 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Loading ...
Joi said,
“The court however, reclassified marriage and family issues as “social policy,” eliminating the application of basic civil rights tests. Social policy is a classification given to welfare entitlements, which are strictly politically controlled. In making this change, the court protected the new system of federal pork at the expense of civil rights. This reclassification would ultimately lead to the legal destruction of marriage and family as we knew it.”
We see by eliminating mens “civil rights” how the feminists and the state could act with impunity towards all men. Without civil rights you’re nothing more than a piece of meat owned by the state.
September 4, 2008 at 3:28 am
Roger F. Gay said,
NOW had certainly been an involved part of the problem since the beginning - being the only organization speaking in favor of the creation of the federal office of child support enforcement before it was created. But the horrible political corruption was driven more by politicians and pork, and by the newly created enforcement industry that’s taken tens of billions in tax dollars without providing any useful service. Feminist organizations, and single / divorced mothers have also complained about this industry.
Most of the “deadbeat dad” propaganda was not created by the feminists (although they didn’t mind repeating it). It was created by the industry, including the federal child support enforcement bureacracy that just wanted to grow itself beyond the scope and power of anything ever seen in American government before.
September 4, 2008 at 3:52 am
Roger F. Gay said,
When I reviewed traditional child support in a number of countries, I discovered the fundamental concept to be the same. Therefore, what I state below does not mean that I require a change in international perspective to match my choices. Traditional child support laws only differed to match their context, welfare state benefits being the most notable. But even in the Soviet Union the concept was still there, adapted in an extreme way to a system of state controlled wealth.
PICSLT resulted in a basic scientific theory of child support calculation. The mathematical theory is independent of national system, i.e. it is “basic” scientific theory. Application of the theory within national systems can lead to a variety of finished applicable formulae however. Similarly, application in the US differs somewhat depending upon whether the family is receiving welfare entitlements or not. But because the same uniform theory is applied, the transition between the two would be smooth. Also - changes in child support amounts owing to movement of the family from one country to another would merely compensate for material system differences - i.e. certain benefits of a welfare state verses not.
I state the three fundamentals of child support decisions as follows:
Source: On Developing Child Support Decision Theory: Principles
September 4, 2008 at 4:59 am
Joi said,
“I state the three fundamentals of child support decisions as follows:
1. Purpose Principle: Child support is for the care and maintenance of children.
2. Relationship (equal duty) Principle: Both parents have an equal duty to support their children.
3. Context Principle: All relevant circumstantial information may effect the amount of the award.”
These three principles are very noble, but when put into practice are manipulated to the advantage of individuals.
First, men have no reproductive rights what-so-ever and women are the sole arbiters of reproduction. The above principles grant men “responsibilities,” without rights.
Second, “no-fault” divorce violates the “marriage contract.” Any party in the marriage can dissolve their marriage for “any” reason and walk away without any real consequences for their actions during the marriage. The family courts which are gender biased award the children to the mothers. Hence, the mothers have nothing to lose as they collect child support from the fathers even when the divorce was initiated by the mothers on frivolous grounds.
Below is a post from Celia from another blog…
Something you might like to look into, for example and among many, is the use of restraining orders as a device to gain legal advantage in divorce - this advantage extends to the disposition of child custody, property and visitation. Many, perhaps most, domestic violence ROs are simply tactical maneuvers to gain legal advantage in family law proceedings. Just by way of example, the Illinois Bar Journal has discussed this and has called ROs “part of the gamesmanship of divorce.”
An article in the Family Law News titled (the official publication of the State Bar of California Family Law Section), outlined the Bar’s concern that “protective orders are increasingly being used in family law cases to help one side jockey for an advantage in child custody…”
See if you can guess which side uses this ploy. The authors also note that the orders are “almost routinely issued by the court in family law proceedings even when there is relatively meager evidence and usually without notice to the restrained person….it is troubling that they appear to be sought more and more frequently for retaliation and litigation purposes.” That’s not me saying that – it is the California Bar that is saying it. So, guess who benefits in this situation? It isn’t men – judges will always issue the order when women ask for it – even with little or no evidence (according to the California Bar). Judges will usually laugh at a man who seeks an RO against a woman unless he appears before him with broken bones and/or is blood-drenched or bleeding to death. So much for blind justice.
According to the Justice Department, two million ROs are issued each year in the United States. The vast majority of these are related to domestic violence ALLEGATIONS. California’s Attorney General (Bill Lockyer), noted that 243,401 of the 274,482 restraining orders active in California in July last year were related to domestic violence ALLEGATIONS. These orders are generally sought ex parte by a woman, without the accused’s (usually a man’s) knowledge and thus, with no opportunity afforded for him to defend himself. When an order is issued, the MAN is booted out of his own home and can even be jailed if he tries to contact his own children. This happens without a hearing (much less a trial) – thus, a MAN is stripped of his possessions and his children (even if temporarily) on nothing more than heresay - welcome to the land of the free and home of the brave. Once the court record is established – even if the man eventually disproves the allegations – it remains a matter of record of which the court is aware and it almost always influences the outcome of any subsequent divorce and child custody proceedings. Are you beginning to get it? Try putting yourself in the man’s shoes for a minute. Imagine being stripped of your home and children on a mere allegation.
This is BUT ONE of a myriad of anomalies (examples of anti-male bias) in the “system” – there are plenty more but you can discover this for yourself. I was going to suggest that you go do some independent research but, better still, stick around here for a while and learn some things. I recommend reading Legalizing Misandry.
September 4, 2008 at 5:57 am
Roger F. Gay said,
Re: reproductive rights – do you mean that it’s a manipulation beforehand? i.e. it’s not his fault she decided not to abort? I understand that’s an issue, but I take it to be a separate one – although I understand that not everyone does. Let me put it this way. If courts decide that this argument leads to no obligation for ncps, then the formula would not be applied – because no child support order would be granted. If an ncp then decides to voluntarily support his child financially, the formulae could help decide on an appropriate amount.
Re: so-called “no-fault” - I agree this eliminated the marriage contract. I would personally like to see civil rights / family rights restored.
Re: restraining orders – a different subject. Stephen Baskerville does a pretty good job covering it in his book.
September 4, 2008 at 7:17 am
AlexM said,
September 4, 2008 at 11:44 am
perspicacious said,
The Republicans may be running one for VP but that doesn’t change who feminists were and who and what they still are nor do such spurious comments in any way mitigate the enormous harm feminists have done to families; men and children in particular. Nice try at a whitewash there but no cigar.
September 4, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Roger F. Gay said,
September 4, 2008 at 12:51 pm
perspicacious said,
September 4, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Robert Stevens said,
This so called study is junk science, trying to make a racket and fraud not appear to be a racket and fraud.
By trying to support the flawed idea that the state can take better care of children than an intact family can, they can’t! That a woman, if you steal enough from the father, can successfully raise children all by herself.
We need to go back to common law, under common law there is no such thing as child support, the state has no right to “judicially kidnap” children and then turn around and by “terroristic threat” extort money from the parent it unlawfully stole, yes I said stole, them from.
Under common law, if the woman wrecks the marriage, make her pay for the damage done by that selfish action. Once you go back to “real law” and hold not only women, but the “government thugs” who back her act of rebellion accountable, you will put a stop to this BS.
This little racket is going to fall apart and those that run it are going to be punished, it’s not if, but when?
It may take years and we may have to rebuild society before its all done, but this racket will end up on the ashheap of history. A bad and evil idea, that either finally failed, or was destroyed by the people it opressed.
We will one day have a fair and just system to replace this “God Awful” racket and those that ran the aforemention racket, will either be dead or doing life in prison.
September 4, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Roger F. Gay said,
The study is not a trick. Child support has been around for a very long time and definitely was / is part of the common law system.
September 4, 2008 at 3:48 pm
amfortas said,
Granted, countries and their lawmakers everywhere for a long time have tried to impose some means of determining a ‘correct’ amount for child support, and all have conveniently ignored the inconveniences of life and relationships. They have disregarded differences in earnings ability over time and the ‘downs’ which often occur. They have completely overlooked the inconvenient fact that sometimes one parent dies. They have conveniently overlooked the fact that people cheat, lie and steal in matters of divorce.
But the most obvious matter ignored is that it is none of their goddam business.
There is only one Principle that should underly the issue of child support. That is that BOTH parents are totally, wholly, jointly and severally responsible for the maintenance, support, health and wellbeing of their children and it is nobody elses business. Parents should only be held to account for the discharge of their responsibilities by the Law, not have the level of ‘monies’ determined for them nor even the quality of the support, wellbeing etc beyond the minimum.
The need for complex calculations, ’scientific’, mathematical systems and legal decisions could be swept away at a stoke.
September 4, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Roger F. Gay said,
If you would, don’t make a judgement about my work based on someone else’s failure or dishonesty. I am not dishonest, and I am reporting success. Note that in CSDT, when conditions are equal, support awards are zero. Also if one parent dies - not sure I see an analytical problem there. The general built-in defense against lying - as it applies to child support calculations, is that it’s not profitable. There are of course always ways to screw things up if the information applied to the calculation doesn’t match reality. Analysis and theory can only go so far, then the problems become application problems.
So, below is the “complex” calculation that takes full account of both parents’ “in-kind” contributions on an equal basis, while preserving the three principles.
What I just said - you can find in the section that starts:
A More General Cross-crediting Formula
When a child support commissioner in Kansas (Jim Johnston) reviewed my explanation of cross-crediting, he immediately responded with a request. “Now do it taking into account all factors in both households.”
But it’s also true in the simpler properly constructed cross-crediting that when all is equal, there is no child support award. And as I think about your concern - I suggest that you reflect a bit more on the first principle. Child support is for support of children - nothing else.
http://www.geocities.com/rogerfgay/cross_text/cross_text.html
September 5, 2008 at 12:24 am
Joi said,
Child support should only be for those who had been married because not only does it stop the abuses, but also shows that the state does not condone unwed pregnacies and bastard children. Instead of these women being shamed, they are idolized. They are “survivors” etc….. There are even books out now on how to be a single mother by choice.
Again child support should only be awarded to women whom had been married and divorced on reasonable grounds. So we need to repeal “no fault” divorce.
Another point on child support… The mothers can decide to not allow the fathers to see the child and that is the end of that. The mothers can also leave the state and then using all these great “calculations” the fathers ends up paying even more child support.
Look this stuff is not rocket science… A lot of it is common sense… But the powers that be will not allow that since we live in a post feminist society.
“Feminism is the intellectual organization of gender hatred, just as Marxism was the intellectual organization of class hatred. Feminism’s business is fashioning weapons to be used against men in society, education, politics, law and divorce court. The feminist aim is to overthrow “patriarchal tyranny.” In this undertaking, the male’s civil rights count for no more than those of the bourgeoisie in Soviet Russia or the Jews in National Socialist Germany.” — What civil rights has wrought. Paul Craig Roberts, July 26, 2000. Townhall.com - Creators Syndicate.
September 5, 2008 at 2:48 am
Roger F. Gay said,
My mathematics for calculating awards has little / no impact on decisions re: whether or not unmarried parents are entitled. If courts are not allowed to order support in a particular case, then courts wouldn’t do anything to calculate child support. So there’s no theoretical problem to wrestle with there.
RE: the woman who got $74K from three pilots - that can be dealt with analytically and my mathematics would not give such a result. See principle #1
September 5, 2008 at 7:43 am
Roger F. Gay said,
I acknowledge beforehand that generally speaking, the Republican Party does not have a good reputation on marriage and family issues. Their current platform does promise not to make parental rights problems worse - this may be seen as too little too late etc., not enough to turn things around, maybe even a white wash. Do you have anything concrete that brings additional clarity?
September 7, 2008 at 10:46 am
NOWMEN.NET said,
September 8, 2008 at 4:05 am
Roger F. Gay said,
September 8, 2008 at 4:35 am
Robert Stevens said,
There is indeed a common law requirement to support your children, but the laws that the state passes are not really laws, they are equity statues. When I said there is no law requiring you to support your children, I was refering to the equity statues, the state wants to call law. These equity statues and the real law that is common law are not the same! Real law, common law is “free standing” ie no contractual requirement existe to make it valid, now equity statues are based on a dry land version of Admiralty, this is an equity system and an equity system must have some type of “contractual Nexus” ie you must volunteer into the system. That is done when, you pay taxes, get a license of any type or have a state issued drivers license. This gives the state its authority and subject you to its every evil whim.
The problem is not that we have a child support system, the problems is that this system is based on equity and the constitutional protections do not existe in equity law. The state can do any damn thing it wants to! The solution, or my solution anyway was to learn this law.
I found that most judgments from courts are void, and that includes child support, because the court operating under equity statues has all kinds of rules that are there because common law is the still the supreme law, ie the constitution and the courts do not follow their own rules. It is amazing, no troubling that so many lawyer and judges do not understand that they are vested with authority and that if they abuse it, it can be removed.
99.9% these people fail to follow their own rules, rending the judgments, verdict and orders of that court void. You have to launch a challenge, ie you have to challenge subject matter jurisdiction, and it does work. I know I have successfuly used it!
You have to do volunmous research and become familiar with the rules of civil procedure in your state and you have to learn how to prepare those documents, but if done properly the court has to vacate all the judgments, verdict and orders, they simpley do not have legal authority and likely never had it. They have to butt out.
Once the state and its interference is removed, you still have support your children, but it is done with a private arrangement, ie a contract which is still equity, but it is a conscionable agreement, mutually beneficial, entered into voluntarily and it brings peace, eventually.
Once the custodial parent ( ie woman) understand that the state can not back her up anymore and that if she want help raising the children, she must sit down and give back what she unlawfully and unrightfully took. The noncustodial parent, then has to reassert his right to be a parent, no more vistitor and financial supporter. And this can be a challenge, since a lot of these guys have never been parents. So, in simple terms, the woman has to get used to the fact , she no longer has the upper hand and her status as “queen of the relm” is over” , the man has to rise up and take on the original role as parent. I am not sure who will suffer the most?
This does work and I believe the concept will catch on,
we have to first get enough people to ” kick the state” out of their business and cut off the money, power and control. This is primary reason the state is so uncooperative, since the billions off this “little racket” pays for a lot of “cushy little jobs”for these people. They won’t give up without a fight, but like the Nazi’s and other evil bastards before them , they will eventually lose and we will have a fair system to replace this God awful racket.
September 8, 2008 at 7:39 am
Roger F. Gay said,
September 8, 2008 at 9:05 am