I had some thoughts about your complaint that may be useful in tightening the
argument. In addition, if someone is willing to help me (I am not an attorney),
I would be willing to invest any time necessary to file this complaint in
Illinois.
Child support for child-related expenses: I am curious why there isn't a
cause of action in the complaint regarding that child support is paid to a
spouse who can use that money anyway he/she pleases. There is never wording in a
court order (as far as I know) that says all child support must be used for only
child-related expenses, and that any unused portion must be returned or applied
to the following month.
By a state statute not specifically having that wording, the state is only
redistributing income without cause (i.e., unlike taxes). The state could make
the argument that it is implied that the money is required to be used for
supporting the child (hence the name). But, by not specifically stating that
this money is to be used for the child only, isn’t this support for the
argument of taking of private property for public use (i.e., redistribution of
wealth) without just compensation? In other words, the state is saying that a
portion of any dollar that one parent earns is rightfully the other parent’s
(not the child’s) to do with as they wish. Without specific wording
designating support paid is only to be used on the child, in my opinion, the
state is stealing wealth and forcing charity, not supporting the child.
Equal sums of support for a child’s expenses: Likewise, there is never
wording in a court order that says the parent receiving the child support is
required to spend an equal sum on the child out of his/her funds (thus making
the burden truly equal).
For example, the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (750 ILCS
5/505) states that "... the court may order either or both parents owing a
duty of support to a child of the marriage to pay an amount reasonable and
necessary for his support." Do I understand it correctly that both parents
have a duty of support to the child? Taking a statement from Colorado’s
defense: “Equal protection guarantees under the Colorado and United States
constitutions assure like treatment of all who are similarly situated."
Both mother and father are both parents; therefore they are similarly situated
– correct?
If that is true, the way I understand this IL statute is that the court is
under no obligation to order both parents to pay support. Therefore, both
parents do not owe a duty to support a child, even though we are similarly
situated. Isn't that directly related to an equal protection defense (i.e., one
parent is obligated to pay, the other parent is not)? Can't one make a sound
argument that the state is formally assigning support unequally whenever a child
support order does not state the support required of both parents, and therefore
the statute goes against the 14th amendment? In effect, the state is forcing us
to live by opposite rules.
Accounting of child-related expenses: There is rarely ever wording in a court
order (if there even ever is) requiring a formal accounting of child-related
expenses that would prove to any legally-interested party that the money is, in
fact, being used for the intended purpose, and that the child support recipient
is also spending an equal sum on the child.
This brings to mind the government’s responsibility to protect citizens.
How is it that the government (i.e., SEC) can require public companies to
properly account for all company-related transactions (for the protection of
legally-interested parties, specifically stockholders and potential investors),
but the government (i.e., divorce courts/states) does not require child support
recipients to account for their child-related transactions (again, for the
protection of legally-interested parties)? Is it not a state’s obligation to
protect its citizens? Could someone make a sound argument that the state is
shirking its responsibility to protect citizens (specifically the child support
payer and the child) by not requiring accounting to show the money is being used
for its intended purpose? Of course, it’s not just the child support payer
that gets hurt if the recipient doesn’t use the money for the intended
purpose.
By definition, reason always has to be supported by fact: Also, are there any
laws on the books that say guideline child support has to be reasonable? If so
and by definition, wouldn't the guidelines have to be based on rational grounds
in order to be considered reasonable? If so, and to be rational by definition,
wouldn't there have to be sufficient explanation or a logical defense of that
reason (i.e., to prove rationality)? For example, what is to stop a state from
assigning 50% or 75% of a parent's income to child support, if there is no
standard for rational grounds defined?
For example, the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (750 ILCS
5/505) states that "[t]he duty of support owed to a minor child includes
the obligation to provide for the reasonable and necessary physical, mental and
emotional health needs of the child." It then says that the guideline for
one child is 20%, yet does not give a logical defense of the reason the courts
choose 20%.
The IL guideline goes on to say that support should be determined based on,
among other tests, "the standard of living the child would have enjoyed had
the marriage not been dissolved."
If the marriage had not been dissolved, the standard of living would
(theoretically) be higher, but only because the expense structure is different
(e.g., no need for 2 homes, only one; no need for 2 cars necessarily, only one;
no need to pay utilities for 2 homes, only one). Therefore, I would think it is
unreasonable to look at the marital standard of living considering the expenses
have likely doubled as a result of the divorce. Reason always has to be
supported by fact -- that is its definition.
Do any of you think that any of these thoughts would make this
complaint/argument stronger?
