I finally took it upon myself to write my congressman, as this seems to be the last line of advice given to me by any legal professional, any friend or family member. If you can't afford a lawyer, there is no justice anymore. This is easily witnessed in my case. The result of this letter? Out of (my) two state congressman, and 2 federal congressman, I received a grand total of 1 phone call. That's right, one. And not from the intended recipient, of course not, they are much too busy these days doing god knows what in some chamber. I received a call from a junior staff member from Senator Merkley's office. He was very polite, and seemed a little dumbfounded by this long letter. He seemed genuinely empathetic to my situation, but basically advised that it gets sticky when I am basically requesting a legislative inquiry into a judicial process/law/policy. The whole separation of powers idea. He recommended I get a hold of the Attorney General or even state governor's office. He provided me a contact to ask for, of which I've yet to call.
A rather gigantic let-down, for the hard work and length of time it took to compose this letter. For what it's worth, if it didn't serve me much purpose, perhaps it will inspire someone else out their going through what I'm going through to do the same. Perhaps you will have better luck with your congressman than I. Feel free to comment below.
My name is Matthew ****** I am a full-time employee of the Department of *******, working as a public utility specialist within the important ********* in Portland, Oregon. Also, I was active duty Air Force for 4 years, and still serve my state and country in the Oregon Air National Guard as an F-15 fighter mechanic as a drill-status guardsman every month-going on 16 years total now. Yet despite being on the payroll of not one, but two federal/state jobs…I am unable to properly feed my family, pay my utilities on time, provide for my family as any normal person should, and barely make my mortgage payment every month. Not for lack of income earned, but solely due to remaining net income allowed by what seems is the predatory mindset of the Oregon Child Support system.
A rather gigantic let-down, for the hard work and length of time it took to compose this letter. For what it's worth, if it didn't serve me much purpose, perhaps it will inspire someone else out their going through what I'm going through to do the same. Perhaps you will have better luck with your congressman than I. Feel free to comment below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Congressman/Congresswoman,
My name is Matthew ****** I am a full-time employee of the Department of *******, working as a public utility specialist within the important ********* in Portland, Oregon. Also, I was active duty Air Force for 4 years, and still serve my state and country in the Oregon Air National Guard as an F-15 fighter mechanic as a drill-status guardsman every month-going on 16 years total now. Yet despite being on the payroll of not one, but two federal/state jobs…I am unable to properly feed my family, pay my utilities on time, provide for my family as any normal person should, and barely make my mortgage payment every month. Not for lack of income earned, but solely due to remaining net income allowed by what seems is the predatory mindset of the Oregon Child Support system.
I am writing you today as I feel
this is my last recourse to get my voice heard, my concern brought to the
attention of the legislative members of my government. It is of a matter of
high importance to me for it affects my family’s well being, quality of life,
and very financial survival in these hard economic times. I have attempted to
first bring my concerns to the local agencies involved, and have each and every
time received the obligatory ‘canned response’ from them every time. “Sorry to
hear of your concerns, we’ve forwarded them to the director for feedback, your
concerns will probably not be raised during our next closed-door policy-making
session, if you wish- send your concerns to your legislators” is the summary
responses.
While I can understand the first
reaction to my concerns regarding the Oregon Child Support Program’s
computation formula for determining child support will not be a popular topic
for a visible public forum, because undoubtedly it will be misconstrued as
arguing for ‘taking money away from the poor custodial children’; but the nuts
and bolts of how the guideline/calculation actually works seems to have some
very striking and unfair advantages for not only the Obligee (receiving parent
for support), but the local state government as well. I feel that the
children’s needs can still be met fairly, while equally allowing for the basic
financial needs of the Obligor (paying parent) to support their [oftentimes
other] immediate family’s welfare.
The Oregon Child Support
Guideline has undergone some updates to it’s content, as of late…to keep in
line with a federally mandated updating process every 4 years (I believe), yet
these changes only seem to ‘tighten the screws’ even further toward the
Obligor. There is scarce any real changes to the unfair details that encompass
a majority of the subjects within the policy. The changes, as I said,
affectively maintain the status quo of siphoning the maximum amount of money
from those paying child support, with the new policy of adding further years to
the indebtedness with the approval of continuing support through post-secondary
schooling (college) for children over 18.
As I know you may not have the
time or experience looking into this complex program, please bare with me as I
will attempt to address the most alarming of its policy’s that I have a concern
with:
Quick background-I have 2 joint children with my ex-wife, whom has
enjoyed full custody of the children due to my inexperience with the law, and
my rights as a father, which led to the award of custody of the children to her
8 years ago. In January of 2011, my ex was awarded the absurd amount of $1245
(plus $281 cost of medical) per month for child support, approximately 2 months
after I acquired my first mortgage for my first home.
1) A major issue I have with the
Oregon Child Support Guideline: It is shocking to read the guidelines proclaim
it is based off the current Federal Poverty Guideline index [FPG] http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/12poverty.shtml#guidelines has
…which I see also contains and spells out clearly a FAMILY scale that
is being ignored. This table contains figures for increasing members of a
persons family w/ increasing amounts of Self Support reserve equivalent, yet
the Child Support Calculation/guideline completely disregards those increases
in family members, (which SHOULD and do allow for dependants [including
step-children] irrespective of child support orders) - Only allowing a single
person poverty rate to support a family, in my case of 6, and claims to
incorporate it's own calculation for additional children. -Which by simple
demonstration on the online calculator, is nowhere near the
amount allotted by that very federal guideline it claims to adhere to! Family
self support reserve for 6= $3,011 per month at 100%, most other states compute
FPG estimate at 125%…while our Oregon child support guidelines [henceforth
OCSG] states is a mere $1,086! The difference is $1,925 dollars not counted
toward self-support reserve for my family, but instead included as ‘available
funds’ to pay child support. Clearly, it is biased to ONLY considering me a
SINGLE, sole person…without any further dependants, with a minimum wage income…which
clearly is NOT accurate or fair, to my situation! Being in a middle class tax-bracket, I am
also burdened much more on my taxes and expenses, including taxes taken out of
the child support prior to its transfer to Obligee, where I cannot claim any of
that back, [Without her written consent as per current IRS tax law].
The OCSG attempts to justify this
glaring unfairness with the claim that my non-joint children are separately
compensated for and included in an additional, separate calculation...well, a
simple press of numbers in the online calculator discloses the fallacy of this
statement, and exactly how much my 3 non-joint children’s support is ‘worth’ to
Oregon- a mere $138.00 dollars! How is it that two school-age, joint children
require $1245.00 dollars [plus insurance and medical] a month in child support,
but my 3+ non-joint children, step child, and wife are allotted a mere $180 for
their total support reserve!?? This is HIGHLY unrealistic, and obviously results
in my family now being robbed of the very basics of life. Our money spent for
groceries is probably 1/5th the recommended amount required for
normal, basic nutrition; and basic utilities like Gas, electric, garbage,
vehicle costs, insurance, household costs [including home & yard maint. and
mandatory HOA fee’s] have been paid late, overdue, and on numerous occasions
on-notice to be shut-off if we hadn’t begun selling off our family’s meager
personal possessions. These decreasing possessions are limited, and nearing
their end, and have been the only thing keeping the heat on, (as credit card is
now maxed out), but they will be gone very soon, leaving us with a major
negative debt-to-income per month for even basic expenses. It literally is a
weekly stress worrying if there will be enough money for gas for me to even get
to my job, and working in a highly professional government environment, it is
becoming embarrassing to not be able to afford proper clothing! All my work
clothes are becoming tattered and I can’t even afford shoes for myself. My
vehicle is not some fancy late model, but the same 13 year old Honda I’ve
driven since I was active duty Air Force 13 years ago! It has 152 thousand
miles and is now starting to need costly repairs and maintenance…there is no
room in the current budget for this. If my car fails, I literally could not
afford to repair it and get to my highly critical job operating our Hydro
Electric Power system for this quarter of the country. I couldn’t afford a used
car payment for a different vehicle under the current Child Support amount.
This obviously has severe repercussions for the stability of my career as a
Federal Employee!
2) To further skew the financial
debt toward the Obligor, The Oregon Child Support guideline is based off of the
Percent-of-obligor/Income Share models that many states use currently, and are
based on only cost estimates from low-income families. Presumptive awards for
moderate and high-income obligors are inappropriately extrapolated from
low-income percentages and do not reflect actually on costs at other income
levels. The presumptive award results in the custodial parent receiving a huge
financial windfall - or profit - in excess of child costs. For typical income
situations, the custodial parent ends up with a higher standard of living than
the non-custodial parent (me) - even when the non-custodial parent earns
significantly more than the custodial parent. This is an extraordinary benefit
for the custodial parent and an extraordinary burden for the obligor. In my
case, as with many others in my tax-bracket, it’s obvious that the custodial
parent's profit is substantial.
3) Upon the latest
recommendation, approved by the new Director of the Oregon Child Support
Program, and despite STRONG
'philosophical disagreement' from those that seemed concerned and able
to voice their opinion…it will be made official and more specified that the
Obligor of child support WILL be ordered to support their joint children in
post-secondary schooling [college]. This despite the obvious fact that no other
American parent would or could EVER be legally forced to do the same for their
children, in any non-custodial obligated manner! This seems a gross over-step
of authority from a department of government which espouses the support of
CHILDREN. The slippery slope seems to be getting ever closer to complete
government enforcement over parental rights in ALL matters! Again, able to be
rebutted? Yeah RIGHT.
4) All told, it is ridiculous
that I, a hard working government employee, with a good paying job roughly 3x
the minimum wage, can no longer afford to feed my children, to pay basic bills,
nor afford a normal 4 bedroom home I purchased [ironically to house said
non-joint children] because I’m now supporting a non-productive, using member
of society, whom has learned quickly it is more beneficial to her [ex-wife] to
NOT work, and simply soak up the financial windfall our court has bestowed upon
her…not only from me, but 3 OTHER fathers as well! One cannot argue for the
FAIRNESS of this system. The fact that there is no cap or limit to the
presumed calculation, adds insult to injury. -Unfairly, there is no ‘ceiling’ on the child
support amount calculated for higher income families. Being in a middle class
tax-bracket, I get punished all the way around. I actually swallowed my pride
once and attempted to apply for food stamps, and they [incredibly] do not count
child support being taken out of my financial income, therefore I was refused -while
before and after me, illegal immigrants were expediently approved- utilizing my
tax dollars. What a country.
What motivation would any working
father in my position ever have to work harder, to gain promotions or
advancement, or better themselves for the sake of their family, if any gain is
likewise handed right back to the Obligee (via periodic increases to child
support)?? To say this system devastates the victims (mostly fathers)
emotionally and financially is nothing, but it also seems to urge not one, but
BOTH parties to become non-productive member of society! I hold this as evidence that the OCSG is far
from Just, as it should consider the glaring difference of the Federal Poverty
Guideline FAMILY support reserve amount in my case, instead of the inaccurate
and inappropriate SELF support amount for one low-income person.
5) WHY was there entered a little
tiny blurb at the very end of the 'RULES' of this guideline, that even
if the Obligee agrees to a lesser amount, the SYSTEM/court/state will not allow
any deviation from the 'presumed' amount more than...10% http://www.oregonchildsupport.gov/laws/rules/050_0765.pdf
? Wow, 10%! What a difference! What a reward for self-reliance! It seems
clear what the intention of this policy is for.
6) Why am I, a
non-criminal civilian…unable to request a simple paternity/DNA test to
establish for the first time the paternity of my alleged daughter
(joint-child), whom is now 12, in lieu of recent and gathering evidence that
she may not actually be my biological child? Simply because someone wrote in
the OCSG that "past 90 days of being misled to sign a voluntary
acknowledgement of paternity 'document', I can't legally establish this at
all"? Why? Because the government doesn't want to potentially lose a
paying member of the child support club? Therefore, I'm to be punished for 20+
years for a 'crime' I didn't commit. Sad that even De@th Row prisoners get this
right to DNA evidence and vindication! The policy needs to be removed; the
allotted time to prove Paternity should have no ‘deadline’ to be challenged.
What’s right is right, and rewarding the deceit and lies of an irresponsible
mother (I acknowledge my part) with child support from potentially the wrong
father should be allowed to be challenged. There are no ‘deadlines’ for a
child’s biological father in reality. And he should not be allowed a
‘get-out-of-responsibility-free’ card due to statute of limitations!
7) I have an issue with the fact
that I cannot claim my step-child whom resides in my home and does not get
child support. The OCSG states:
Additional Children (formerly
non-joint children)
Enter the number of children not included in this calculation that the
parent has a duty to support. Only include children that reside in the parent’s
home or for whom the parent is ordered to pay ongoing support. Children ages
18-20 and attending school (see ORS 107.108 and OAR 137-055-5110) and
stepchildren may only be counted if the parent is ordered to pay support for
that child. The parent’s income will be reduced to reflect the portion of
income required for the additional children. OAR 137-050-0720(2) and Child
Support Worksheet, lines 1c and 1d.
-Am I or any other father in the
country court ordered to pay support for my own non-joint children?? No…and yet
I am allowed to claim them within the simple definition of 'reside in parent's
home' to satisfy the IRS! Nowhere does it state I need to be a legal father, and
it clearly states EITHER resides in home OR ordered to pay ongoing support. Why
would any step father be ORDERED to pay support to their stepchild whom resides
in their own home??[This obviously assumes parents aren’t divorced]. This is
inane made-up B.S. Who created and signed off on this 'rule'? I should be
allowed to claim my step-child as ‘Loco
Parentis’ within the OCSG calculation the same as my biological non-joint
children, when I can prove that she either doesn’t have an existing child
support order with another father, or she does and does not receive payment.
Either situation does not seem to matter to the IRS, why is the Child Support
law above this Federal example? This clearly demonstrates an unfair bias to the
support I require for my actual family’s needs.
8) Due to yet another loop-hole
in the flawed logic of the OCSG- I have arrears from the last modification
hearing, because the judge ordered a full months payment of the new amount IN
RETRO and PRIOR to the actually hearing where he even signed the modification! They
list this authority as ‘Effective to the first of the month in which its order
is signed’. In what country is a person incurred at DEBT before a contract
is even SIGNED!?? Why is this completely illegal in every other facet of
the legal system, but somehow [and only recently it seems] completely legal for
judges to do this for child support!
When my original divorce decree assigned child support, the payments
began on the FOLLOWING paycheck, after my payroll processed it. When there was
a first modification to my child support, again it affected my next or second
paycheck after the order was signed. WHY, during my last hearing, was I billed
an entire $1245.00 for the month of January…NOT deducting for my already
previously paid child support amount for that month…when the order was heard
and signed on the 21rst of that month!
This should be ILLEGAL and is BARBARIC. I have had automatic deductions
to my pay for 8 years for child support, and you know what? All this did was
put me in arrears unfairly, give me the 'dead-beat' dad stigma by DHS’s and our
governments presumption, jeopardize not only my much needed tax return, but
also completely and negatively affects my credit report as well! As it of
COURSE shows up as a BAD debt! This in-turn prevents me from effectively
attempting to refinance my mortgage. Due to no fault of my own. That’s just the
way it now apparently works.
9) Speaking of negative credit, I
wholeheartedly believe the way the Oregon Child Support method of electronically
deducting, processing, and paying out my support is in violation of laws that are supposed to protect me from
the above situation; Fair Credit Billing Act, Federal Equal Credit Opportunity
Act, and the Federal Consumer Credit Protection Agency. Since the way they
process my payments, always leaves a running ‘past balance’ or arrears amount,
it is unfairly reported as a bad debt -impacting my credit report and score,
while I’m fully complying with on-time [Read: Automatic!] payments! This is in direct
violation of federal law, and they have made no effort to correct this process.
I believe I was told by my case worker, “Yeah…it is what it is…that’s just how
we process it…There’s nothing I can do about it, sorry!” Sorry for illegally
ruining my credit? Unacceptable!
10) WHY is the very department
that is solely responsible for updating and editing these policy's and rules
within the very SAME agency as the one that directly benefits from the results
of these crippling 'rules'?? If this doesn't out-right scream of fraud toward
tax-payers, under the guise of 'providing money for the poor children’ I don’t
know what does!
11) And lastly, but perhaps the
most obscene example of government over-stepping my basic civil liberties, is
the matter of post-secondary support. Upon the latest recommendation, approved
by the new Director of the Oregon Child Support Program, and [by their own
words] despite STRONG
‘philosophical disagreement' from those that seemed concerned and able to voice
their opinion…it will be made official and more specified that the Obligor of
child support WILL be ordered to support their joint children in post-secondary
schooling [college]. -Simply because their parents split up? To me, that
basically implies they've given themselves the authority to order ALL OTHER
American citizen/parents to pay for their child to attend school, or the same
punishments shall be in order- ruining our credit, throwing us in jail,
revoking our drivers licenses, generally fostering public 'brow-beating' campaigns
against all the 'dead-beat-dads' out there that literally are having half their
paychecks taken and given to the other party. This despite the obvious fact
that no other American parent would or could EVER be legally forced to do the
same for their children, in any non-custodial obligated manner! This seems a
gross over-step of authority from a department of government which espouses the
welfare of CHILDREN. The slippery slope seems to be getting ever closer to
complete government enforcement over parental rights in ALL matters! This
cannot even be constitutionally legal!
There is numerous mention in the
OCSG’s of the ability to ‘Rebut’ this situation, and the above mentioned topics
that affect the presumed amount, if it be deemed and proven inappropriate, but
in reality, Judges do not find anything other than extreme, extra-ordinary
[medical] costs worthy of consideration for adjusting the presumed amounts.
Apparently, they exclude having a home, providing food and lights on, as
‘routine expenses’ that aren’t a factor to be considered. Therefore, they expect
me to move my family of 6 into a 2 bedroom apartment and eat macaroni and
cheese every single day, and walk 25 miles to work!
I will tell you I’ve tried, with
3 separate hearings now over the last 3 years, with two different Judges, to
rebut the presumed amount, and the mindset is eerily the same at every hearing.
It seems there is a severe disconnect with judges, who either shirk their
ability to allow any variance to the presumed calculator amount, or flat-out
ignore considering anything other than extreme medical conditions as the ONLY
reason to deviate from the presumed amount! Either they don’t know how to fill
in the block “If amount deviates from presumed amounts, list reasons here:’ or
they are apparently too scared to be fair to just a few that try to argue for a
fair amount. Perhaps because of the feeling they are ‘going against law/
policy’ or worse, aren’t bringing in the maximum amount of dollars possible
into the obvious money-making indentured-servitude program they argue is ‘for
the children’. What about MY non- joint children!??
Why do these glaring injustices
keep getting ignored, unaddressed, and made worse [more severe] every time it’s
updated? Does one have to file a civil
suit against the Oregon DHS to protect their [other] immediate families’
well-being??
Of course I want my joint
children to have a good life, but we both know they don't always get that, in
fact, the almost 400% increase in my child support hasn't gone to their welfare
at all, no more food in her house, no new clothes for school...nothing.
Just her having more fun spending on herself. I know this isn't the case with
everyone, but I've also fought for custody to provide them the same lifestyle
my family WAS starting to have...and a conciliation services evaluation [To
determine where the best household for the children to reside] is always
ignored and never entertained. It seems the children aren't really as important
to my judge, as maintaining the status quo. And that is truly a sad testament
to how far our judicial system has strayed from something it was set out to do -for
the children's welfare. Let’s just call this by what it effectively has become
- Disguised Alimony! I tell you, the fact
that my ex-wife does NOT have to work, instead it's more beneficial for her NOT
to, and has numerous children by other fathers (After me, thank you) whom she
ALSO receives support from, now has a MUCH higher quality of lifestyle, doing
NOTHING, while I WORK HARD at TWO jobs to provide 40% of my NET income to two
joint children...while my 3 Non-joint children suffer, are literally hungry
every minute of the day, our utilities overdue...because they are worth
a pittance 180 dollars allowance from this Oregon Calculator!?
I often am advised, that I need
to get a lawyer. I cannot afford a lawyer…to handle these numerous and
complicated issues I bring up here, as a bonus side-effect of the inappropriate
amount of Child Support being withheld from my pay. This obviously puts me at a
severe disadvantage to have any of my legal rights addressed in court. In
hearings I am completely bull-dozed by the judge, the fact that I didn’t have
representation an annoyance to them, and more important than any concerns I
legitimately attempted to have addressed, in a rushed 15 minute hearing.
What upsets me most, is what I
mentioned briefly above, the whole program seems to not focus on the benefit to
the children, but instead has grown to become a thinly-veiled and aggressively
protected program to solicit extra funds into the Department of Human Services,
and affiliated state programs. Without dismissing my concern as a mere
‘conspiracy theory’, let’s be honest and see this for what is actually
happening: The state government is, of it's own self-interest, maximizing its
profit/income by taking advantage of a mutually beneficial financial kickback
from the federal government, at my [and thousands of other unknowing fathers]
expense. I.e.: The more this formula makes me pay, the more money the department
of human services can report to the Feds, the more federal kickbacks are
rewarded, and the more temporary interest my money makes within their banking
system –at my expense! Ironically, they seem to pride themselves on the fact
that they do this to people, all in the name of the children! The Oregon DHS
gains more profit when they maximize my ordered support. That would be
more accurately called a 'Conflict of Interest' or FRAUD, and by the definition
of the term, corrupt government practice toward hard-working tax-payers
both Obligor and Obligee!
While all this seems to fly under
the radar of most Americans, especially most uneducated, naïve or ignorant
fathers, I have done much to learn why this is happening to me. I can only hope
that this lengthy email has demonstrated some very fundamental flaws with our
Child Support System, and though the policies may be only updated infrequently,
and with much bureaucratic discussion, I feel it extremely important to address
these concerns immediately, as they are very much borderline on violating our
constitutional, if not God-given rights, to thrive, protect our property and ALL of our family’s livelihoods –to
pursue happiness!
Thank you for your time and
consideration of this matter. I hope that you may demonstrate vigilance in
upholding the civil rights of an unseen group of individuals suffering greatly
at the hands of a flawed government program. I humbly beg of you, that you may
make some change, toward correcting these immoral policies.
Respectfully,
Matthew *******
TSgt. U.S. Air Force; Father and
Husband.
A
reminder of our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS:
8) Shall allow
no slavery or involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime of
which the party shall have been duly convicted.
Security
(Life):
(2) Not to be
injured or abused.
Personal
Liberty:
(8) To express
or publish one's opinions or those of others.
(10) To be
secure in one's person, house, papers, vehicle, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures.
Private
Property:
(12) To
acquire, have and use the means necessary to exercise the above natural rights
and pursue happiness, specifically including:
(1) A private
residence, from which others may be excluded.
(2) Tools
needed for one's livelihood.
(3) Personal
property, which others may be denied the use of.
Non-natural
rights of personhood, created by social contract:
(1)
To enter into contracts, and thereby acquire contractual rights, to secure the
means to exercise the above natural rights.
(3) To
petition an official for redress of grievances and get action thereon in
accordance with law, subject to the resources available thereto.
(4) To
petition a legislator and get consideration thereof, subject to resources
available thereto.
(5)
To petition a court for redress of grievances and get a decision thereon,
subject to resources available thereto.
(6) Not to have one's natural
rights individually disabled except through due process of law,…
