Well Valeri, maybe men talk about thier rights so much because they don't get the chance to raise thir children as they see fit, because of mother's like yourself I'm sure
Maybe if the men got more say in how their children were raised, and the mother's were not so spiteful, and actually CARED about the children's feelings, the men wouldn't have to fight to keep the little rights to the children they do get. Most men have to live in constant fear of their ex-wives becasue the court system favors them so much! The men are treated like a bank, and not like a father!

I understand that men have rights, but the issue is not of the child support agency abusing their power in exercising their right to arrest. The issue is what gets the man placed behind bars in the first place. If a child support order is issued and it goes unpaid that is the father's fault. If he is struggling with the payments it is his right to have the order adjusted so his income can be re-evaluated. If the court sees that his income is no longer what it was then the order will be lowered so he can remain current. Now if he fails to do that then its his own fault that he's in jail. It is his responsibility as a man to take care of his business and not let notifications and warrants go without being addressed. Find a responsible man and you will find a man who is a father handling his business.

Illinois is one of only 10 states that are still using the economically irrational "sole income model". Combined with outdated formulas, Illinois CS model has created a large tier of "windfall recipients". The out of whack formulas often becomes drivers of custody battles that hurt kids. The Children's Rights Council of Illinois recommended a family-friendly income-shares model, as used in Arizona, to the Illinois Family Law Study Committee last year. Illinois and other states need meaningful reforms to adopt reasonable CS calculations and reduce the number and ferocity of 'custody battles'.

Thank you Mike and "Really". It's apparent that both Ashley and SingleMom (wonder wonder) are either clueless citizens or jilted Spouses that are using the system to feed their spitefulness.

No sane person, that after reviewing most of this cases where Fathers are jailed, will support that system.

The two "Ladies" are confusing "willing to pay" with "ability to pay".

Singlemom,
You're assuming that the state the father lives in is reasonable enough to properly evaluate a man's true income versus his potential income and modify his order accordingly. In states like New Jersey for example, it is disgustingly difficult to modify a child support order even if there is a legitimate change in circumstance. I myself have been in court for almost 2 years, appealing my case where not only am I not currently earning the imputed income but I've brought in tax returns proving that I was NEVER earning that amount. I can only pay a little over half of my considerable child support obligation, meanwhile my arrears are steadily accruing. By the time the courts finish deliberating I will owe over $19,000 in arrears that I will be responsible for paying because they won't retroactively adjust them... thanks to the Bradley Amendment. The states reasoning is that I am underemployed because I have a degree and because I'm an artist I may be earning other income through freelancing and hiding it......I'm sorry, WHAT??!!!
You have a point, I understand that I'm at fault for not being able to make the original hearing for working out of town at the time. The courts imputed my income based on the information my ex gave social services. However the information is most likely inaccurate and they calculated my presumed income based on a degree I don't possess in a profession I'm not in. I researched this and found out (according to the bureau of labor statistics) that someone in my actual profession with my actual degree/ level of education, would be expected to earn nowhere near the income that was imputed to me. I'm hoping that the higher court sees all of this evidence and adjusts properly this time... but to be honest this is my third petition and I'm really beginning to lose faith and this is from someone who used to think the process was fair and just. I have two other children who deserve just as much attention and support and I shouldn't have to deprive them of that because the courts are enabling this woman to project her bitterness and control.
It's gotten to a point where I can't even afford to make the trip from Connecticut to Philadelphia once a month anymore to see my daughter. Can you imagine what that's doing to my daughter? Can you imagine what that's doing to me? They won't make her responsible for any of the transportation because she says her schedule won't allow it. And believe me if she doesn't have to she wont. Even my lawyer is astounded at the courts one sided rulings. What irritates me the most is that she knows I'm not earning the income but because she literally doesn't have to say A WORD in court while they rule it doesn't make any sense for her to speak up because it works in her benefit not to. Show me a moral woman in court and I'll show you a good and dependable father.

to the singlemom below.. what do you think noncustodial parents (or Fathers) are ? in your mind like many other mothers think fathers are a paycheck and need to pay for there children or a free ride for the mothers... this has to stop !! the fact is that children need both parents and both mother and father need to support the child... not just throw the load on the father or noncustodial parent and turn him into a modern slave.. cause that is what the noncustidial parent is a modern day slave, mothers want a free.. where is the mothers love for the child if shes taking the father out of the picture... REMEMBER if it was you on the other side of the table. your license, passport, taxes, health insurance, hard earned paycheck, pay for babysitter would be taken or garnished and intrest would be added on top of all of it... your self esteam, stress, finiancial situation, living situation, would drasticly change forever, none of this would benefit the child.. i can guarentee you that you would demand change too !!