Georgia Attorney Lawyer

A recent decision by the Supreme Court of Georgia has decided that the current standards take charge of the child is unconstitutional. These standards are based on the guidelines of Wisconsin, we need a number of changes in respect of at least as a “constitution”.

There is a rate assess the percentage of all resources, regardless of whether non-parent is $ 10000 per year or $ 10 million per year. As to a higher than necessary.

The guidelines do not take into account the large tax benefits, the part of parents. The child tax benefits thereon, the household allowance, child exceptions, Child Tax Credits, the appropriations for child care and earned income credits. Why not non-parents, by the way, pay for half or more of any, benefit from tax relief? This is not the joint use of child tax benefits related same level of protection and injuries is not only an extraordinary advantage for parents, but also an exceptional charge for non-parents.

The guidelines do not take into account the income of parents. The parent is not required for the same standard for a contribution to child costs. In most cases, especially in cases of high-income parents, the obligation ends in whole or in large part to the detriment of non-parent.

Cost for children that parents are covered by the guidelines. Similar charges when the child with the parent inadmissibility is not similar consideration. Each parent has an obligation to provide financially for the same children, if the custody of another parent.

The guidelines are based on the prosperity of situations in which the parent was not available. The parent is not obliged to support financially support children (parents are not working and had no earned income). The guidelines do not take into account the debtor pays significant taxes (with the debtor OUTSIDE adopted the very low income level). This violates not the same protection and the needs of children when they cared for by non-parent.

The criteria for exceptions to guidelines give any indication that derogations to the application in a coherent manner. It is unconstitutionally vague and general contains no exceptions in most cases - even if the conditions exist for an exemption.

Each government’s mandate cost basis mingles with our children a constitutional right to privacy. These guidelines provide THAT State.

Only one member in 1998, Mr. Mark Rogers, and none in 2001, has been duly qualified through education, background and experience to accurately assess the economic situation and financial intricacies of the guidelines. It is also this, the Court finds that to be a sign of arbitrary state action.

By declaring that the guidelines against the proper content of these procedures, the Court notes by the State Council whose guidelines are very Georgia’s supposedly based. In Parrett V. Parrett, 146 Wis. 2d 830 to 842, 432 NW 2d 664 (6) (1988, the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin), an event not to raise constitutional issues, has shown that, especially in situations of income more high, the Guidelines, such as Georgia, a figure also on the needs of the child as being rational. ”

The Court finds that the obligation of non-parent to pay an amount higher than those designed to meet the basic needs child, as the economic analysis showed that the guidelines for decisions on parental unacceptable financial burden for children .

Both parents have the same obligation to support the costs on children. Both parents are also allowed, the cost shifts on the same children, but compared to their commitment. The forecasting results in the allocation of parents, a huge wind financial case - profit - more than the child costs.

Counties receive federal matching funds (the state) for each dollar paid by the child are evaluated. Wisconsin current guidelines have been audited and are unqualified individuals in the department for development and staff of fraud or deception, the responsibility of parents in Wisconsin. There is not the traditional checks and balances in the “family” court. Remedies are never granted, and drastic measures are used to this “Constitution” rating. Wisconsin policy is the victim of a parent, children harm, remuneration and the other parent and biblical (where “the family” courts reside) by the removal of children by their parents. These forces of the Confederation of taxpayers to subsidize divorce.