Linda Chavez wrote an article titled "Putting Children First". Link here. http://townhall.com/columnists/lindac ... 03/putting_children_first

She quotes the reports on how children of divorce do poorly.

Quote: "Myriad studies have documented that children who grow up without two parents are more likely to do worse in school, drop out, commit crimes, and earn less during their lifetimes than those who are raised with both parents, even adjusting for economic status and race. They are also far less likely to have stable relationships and marriages as adults, thus fueling the cycle of marriage breakdown."

E-Mail, Legal or Not?

I think it’s going to important for fathers to watch the outcome of the Michigan father on trial for reading his ex-wife’s e-mail. This man is facing 5 years in prison based on an anti hacking law, and the decision may affect fathers everywhere.

He found her password in a notebook and discovered his wife was having an affair with an ex-husband previously jailed for domestic abuse against the same wife. He used the e-mail to gain a divorce; he claims to protect his daughter. Even though the information was on a family computer, she is claiming an expectation of privacy because it was password protected. Now realize there are serious crimes that don’t equal 5 years of incarceration.


http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/n ... s/articleshow/7177453.cms

Phew, I am finally off night shift and back on days. Back in the land of the living.

Welcome to LaDads. Fighting for shared parenting and fair child support since 2000.

LaDads promotes Shared Parenting in Louisiana. Shared Parenting is when both parents continue to have equal access and rearing responsibilities for their children after a divorce.

A message from Stephen Baskerville

An op-ed length version of my Independent Review article has been published on the website of The Independent Institute (link below). TII is a respected free-market think tank, and this is important mainstream exposure of the abuses of the child support system.

Also, my interview with Dr. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theology Seminary, has been transcribed on the important Christian internet site Crosswalk: http://www.crosswalk.com/parenting/11572873/. (Thanks to Billy Miller for pointing this out.)

Taken Into Custody is now up to 44 reviews on Amazon -- all of them 5 stars. Just as a point of comparison, David Blankenhorn's book, The Future of Marriage, was also published last year and received considerable attention from political pundits at the think tanks in Washington. On the weekend, Taken Into Custody was selling at more than 20 times the rate of Blankenhorn's book. This is an indication how out-of-touch the intellectual elite (conservative as well as liberal) is with the concerns of most people.

NOTE: Please urge your friends to sign on to this mailing list at www.stephenbaskerville.net.
(I have little time to maintain this list, so it would be very helpful if people would sign on.)

Stephen

Stephen Baskerville, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Government
Patrick Henry College
1 Patrick Henry Circle
Purcellville, Virginia 20132

Need to find out what the community property laws mean. This is your book.


Matrimonial Regimes, 3d (Vol. 16, Louisiana Civil Law Treatise Series)
By: - Katherine S Spaht and W. Lee Hargrave and Richard Moreno
Format: Book - hardbound
Copyright: 2007
List Price: $144.00

Here is a first draft of a proposed revision to the child support code to prevent what happened to Ned Martello in his divorce. In that case, the court ordered 93% of his income taken as interim spousal and child support.

1) Put an upper limit on interim spousal at 1/3 of total income as there is for a final spousal support order.

2) Put an upper limit on child support for each child that a parent has.

3) Put the maximum limit for combined spousal and child support to the 50% limit in the garnishment law.

What else?

Art. 141. Child support; authority of court

A. In a proceeding for divorce or thereafter, the court may order either or both of the parents to provide an interim allowance or final support for a child based on the needs of the child and the ability of the parents to provide support.

B. The court may award an interim allowance only when a demand for final support is pending.

C. The sum awarded under this Article shall not exceed:

(1) 26% of the obligor's net income for the first child.

(2) 11% of the obligor's net income for a second child.

(3) 6% of the obligor's net income for a third child.

(4) 5% of the obligor's net income for any subsequent children.

D. The total sum awarded under this Article in compbinatoin with an award for final (CC 112(C)) or interim spousal support (CC 113) shall not exceed 50% of the obligor's net income.

E. All retroactive awards shall be made payable over time.

(1) The sum awarded retroactively shall not exceed 5% of the obligor's net income.

(2) The amount awarded retroactively shall not be considered as arrears for the purposes of prosecution nor counted as arrears by DSS until the monthly payment is missed and then only by the amount of the payment not obtained.

F. All awards must also comply with any limits set by the maximum garnishment law (R.S. 13: 3881).

Acts 1993, No. 261, §6, eff. Jan. 1, 1994.

=============================================================

Art. 113. Interim spousal support allowance pending final spousal support award

A. Upon motion of a party or when a demand for final spousal support is pending, the court may award a party an interim spousal support allowance based on the needs of that party, the ability of the other party to pay, and the standard of living of the parties during the marriage, which award of interim spousal support allowance shall terminate upon the rendition of a judgment of divorce. If a claim for final spousal support is pending at the time of the rendition of the judgment of divorce, the interim spousal support award shall thereafter terminate upon rendition of a judgment awarding or denying final spousal support or one hundred eighty days from the rendition of judgment of divorce, whichever occurs first. The obligation to pay interim spousal support may extend beyond one hundred eighty days from the rendition of judgment of divorce, but only for good cause shown.

B. The sum awarded under this Article shall not exceed:

(1) 33% of the obligor's net income.

(2) The total sum awarded under this Article in combination with an award for child support (CC 141) shall not exceed 50% of the obligor's net income.

Art. 112. Determination of final periodic support
A. When a spouse has not been at fault and is in need of support, based on the needs of that party and the ability of the other party to pay, that spouse may be awarded final periodic support in accordance with Paragraph B of this Article.

B. The court shall consider all relevant factors in determining the amount and duration of final support. Those factors may include:

(1) The income and means of the parties, including the liquidity of such means.

(2) The financial obligations of the parties.

(3) The earning capacity of the parties.

(4) The effect of custody of children upon a party's earning capacity.

(5) The time necessary for the claimant to acquire appropriate education, training, or employment.

(6) The health and age of the parties.

(7) The duration of the marriage.

(8) The tax consequences to either or both parties.

C. The sum awarded under this Article shall not exceed one-third of the obligor's net income.

D. A final award of spousal support shall always be modifiable. Non-modifiable spousal support awards are expressly disallowed as being against the best interest of the public.

The total sum awarded under this Article in combination with an award for child support (CC 141) shall not exceed 50% of the obligor's net income.



Nick