More anal retentive c$ analysis by me…………

The following are some stats from 1998
http://www.census.gov/prod/2000pubs/p60-212.pdf

22.9 million children had another parent living elsewhere than their household. 14 million parents had custody.

……Of these 28.9 percent lived in poverty.

Of the total 14 million 56 percent had a child support agreement, 7.84
million; while 6.6 million did not have a child support agreement.

2.9 million reported receiving all child support due; w/ the family income
averaging around $27,500 for this group.

1.9 million reported partial payment; w/ a family income averaging around $20,400, for this group.

2.3 million reported no payment; w/ family income averaging $18,400, for this group.

TOTAL 7.1 million (why are 740,000 people missing in this figure????)

On pg. 5 it list 6.1 million not having an agreement (500,000 missing???) and states the income for this group was not statistically different from custodial parent with an agreement receiving partial payment; where family income averaged $20,400.

Because of the discrepancy between the total number of custodial parents,
~9 percent, the accuracy is questionable.

7.975000000E+010
3.876000000E+010
4.232000000E+010
******
TOTAL INCOME AGREEMENT 1.608300000E+011
AVG. $22652.11268

TOTAL INCOME NO AGREEMENT 1.244400000E+011
AVG. $20,400

This equals approximately 1.635714286 children per custodial parent.

Which means those with an agreement on average did ~$100/mo/child better
than those with no agreement!!!!

However, if the 6.1 million whom had no agreement and whom had an income of
$20,400 is used as a baseline, those with an agreement, receiving all had
an average support order per child per month of ~$362??

Yet, on average 4.2 million custodial parents with a support order had
$56/mo/child less than those without a support order.

Which shows on average, children are better off without a child support order. These government statistics blatantly tell us that 60 percent of those with an agreement did WORSE than those with no agreement.

This is significant because the group without an agreement is 1.6 times more likely to receive payment, than the group of partial payment and no payment.

Which means 60 percent of custodial parents awarded child support will be
MADE poorer by the award.

Where did the money go?

The fact the total cost of the legal route during a ‘family crisis’ has gone from 4.8 billion in the 60′s, to 148 billion today, suggest all child support does is create a means for the legal system to enrich itself and impoverish children.

Why?

The vast majority of people raising children do NOT have sufficient income
for one household, let alone two, and when the draconian measures used to force child support are put into place, it serves to make it even more unlikely there will be enough income for two households, because it creates imaginary income, which is impossible to pay because it is imaginary, which then turns into debt, which is used as proof for their justification in beating the noncustodial parent into the ground.

Some like to claim those whom paid all child support also had frequent
visitation. Implying visitation equals compliance. This is totally
false, as the above numbers show, income is the only factor.

*ALL* total payment and visitation show is an income group whom could
afford two households………..

Looks to me as if most non-custodial parents are servants and lap dogs to custodial parents, if you are to believe these statistics.

Perhaps this is punishment to those few who are ‘dead-beats’ and who have practically abandoned their children, but what about the millions like me?