Editorspeak
In January, Chief Justice of the Administrative Court John J. Irwin quietly released a new edition of the Massachusetts child support guidelines, as required by federal law. No public hearings were held. No fathers/non-custodial parents were consulted.
Child support payments exist in a thoroughly sexist and discriminatory environment. It is, in effect, an entitlement program for women who have babies; a tax on fatherhood. It is a transfer of wealth of unprecedented proportions. It is money paid by men, to women, for which there is no accountability. It is better named politically correct alimony. At a time when feminism teaches women to avoid dependence on men, this alimony must be given a PC makeover: hence child support.
What is the ethical basis for holding someone financially responsible for something that has been stolen from them? The state's role in setting and enforcing child support must be limited to cases of intentional child abandonment. Child support, in the present discriminatory environment, is state-sponsored thievery. Two hundred years ago a revolution was sparked by Massachusetts residents who claimed that "taxation without representation is tyranny."
FF! recommends that fathers going through custody litigation make it known to the court that they do not acknowledge the authority of the guidelines in setting a child support award. Non-custodial parents, the payers, were not represented in their formulation. They asked to be part of the process and they were ignored. So be it.
The CS guideline is therefore illegitimate, and by the will of the people, invalid. Challenge it's use in court. Do not cooperate with tyranny, resist it.