Interesting information from HIS mouth

Okay so I have been taking to surfing and blog watching again and what do my wonderous eyes behold? This article about child support in Australia. Now this should really interest those mothers in Australia as well as the mothers here in the states. In this article Franklin speaks about CSE targetting NCP's in order to determine whether said parent is "hiding" income or assets. I wonder how many men would stoop so low as to hide assets or income?

That's borne out by U.S. Census Bureau figures that show that child support orders to mothers averaged $5,660 per year, while those to fathers averaged $4,895, or about 13.5% less.

This is very interesting. I wonder how and where he got these figures from. I just recently answered the census and these questions were not asked of me. I was asked how many lived in my house, the ages of all in the household, and if any of the people in my house could possibly be counted in another household. I was asked for our race, age, and education (whether any were in school or worked or both). That was it. But that was not the main point of my cutting this paragraph. The main point of pulling this paragraph was the difference between fathers and mothers obligations for child support. Notice that franklin states women pay about 13.5 percent less. Now read this paragraph:

Since child support is usually calculated as a percentage of income, and women in the aggregate earn 20-24% less than do men, those figures suggest that mothers who are ordered to pay support are better off financially than are women generally.

Now I wonder how he got to this conclusion. The conclusion I would reach from seeing that women earn on average 20-24% less and only have to pay 13.5 less than non-custodial fathers, is that women are actually paying more than men. How do I get to that conclusion? Well if women make 20% less and only pay 13% less, it only stands to reason that women pay more of their income to support. Not that child support paying women are better off than men, just that women do not fight child support and try to get modifications.

He also blows right past this little tidbit:

As a sidelight, the article mentions that mothers do a better job of paying their support orders than do fathers, but without any context. It says that about 21% of mothers are in arrears while some 33.5% of fathers are.

Of course he will now go on and create a new post stating that there are more men paying support than women, so it only stand to reason (of course) that there are more men who default than women. This is not about the actual numbers however. This is about percentages. And there is a larger percentage of men who are skipping out on supporting their children than women. Now one must wonder what excuses these men will use? One must also wonder how many of these men utilize court actions in order to deny support to their children. One must also wonder how many of these same non-supporting men committed dv against their ex-partners. Or abused the children. One really must wonder.

I think I know the answer:



One must wonder who is partaking of what in order to determine that women who make 20-24% less than men and are only paying 13% less have it so much better than men and this is the very reason women pay their support.

I have a theory for you. Maybe just maybe most mothers are better parents than men and no matter the circumstance for the loss of custody of their child, they do what they must in order to ensure the child is cared for. how's that for a theory for you?