A bill that would limit how much high-income earners pay in child support and require equalized placement of children in most custody cases is drawing strong criticism from family law practitioners and anti-domestic violence advocates.

But proponents say it would help parents, especially fathers, get a fairer shake when it comes to spending time with and financially supporting children after a breakup.

Assembly Bill 540, sponsored by Rep. Joel Kleefisch, R-Oconomowoc, would ban judges from using incomes above $150,000 to calculate child-support payments. It also would bar judges from taking into account parents’ assets in determining monthly payments.

And the bill would mandate “a placement schedule that equalizes to the highest degree the amount of time the child may spend with each parent” except in cases of “clear and convincing evidence” that it’s not in the child’s best interest.

The bill’s opponents say the measure, to be debated at a public hearing Wednesday, would take away some of the discretion that judges currently have to craft financial and placement arrangements that they believe are best for children.

Current law mandates “regularly occurring, meaningful periods of physical placement with each parent ... taking into consideration geographic separation and accommodations for different households” unless physical placement would endanger the child’s “physical, mental or emotional health.”

In addition, judges currently must take into consideration the wishes of the child and the parties, the relationship of each parent with the child, the amount and quality of time each parent has previously spent with the child, the child’s adjustment to home, school and community and cooperation and communication between the parents.

Steve Blake, head of the Oxford-based Dads of Wisconsin, said the bill seeks to ensure children have equal time with both parents, where feasible.

“We want the state to protect both dads’ and moms’ rights equally,” Blake said, “and an acknowledgement from the state of Wisconsin that fathers and mothers are equally important in the life of the child.”

In a brief interview, Kleefisch said, “The real push is to equalize fathers’ role in divorces, and child custody and child support.”

Tony Gibart, public policy coordinator for End Domestic Abuse Wisconsin, said no other state has a presumption that children will spend equal time with each parent after a split. AB 540, he said, would “create barriers for victims of domestic violence and their children, and make it much more difficult for judges to create safe placements for children and domestic-abuse victims.”

Versions of that piece of the bill have been introduced in at least two previous sessions but have failed to pass the full Legislature. This time around, the proposal includes a limit on child-support payments for high-income earners, potentially saving them tens of thousands of dollars a year. And it prohibits judges from considering assets such as homes, vehicles and retirement accounts when determining a parent’s ability to pay.

Blake said under current law, monthly child-support payments sometimes go far beyond “clothing, feeding and housing a child and making sure he isn’t on the dole.”

“The $150,000 limit is ... to prevent, for lack of a better term, gold diggers,” Blake said. “I know one guy who is paying $15,000 a month for three kids to a wife who doesn’t work at all.

“The state doesn’t have any compelling state interest that the children of rich people live opulent lifestyles,” he added. “The state’s interest is in protecting the state’s interest in not having to support that child.”

But Linda Roberson, a family law attorney in Madison, said that while the current law is not perfect, she sees no upside to this bill.

“All of the social-science literature and longitudinal studies show that women and children, (especially) housewives and children, have long-term negative (financial) consequences as a result of divorce, and this legislation is going to make it worse,” Roberson said. She added children should be allowed to “share equitably in the family’s income.”

State Rep. Gary Hebl, D-Sun Prairie, a member of the Assembly’s Family Law Committee scheduled to hear the bill next week, said the $150,000 cap is “arbitrary.”

“The proposal would protect one parent who makes a lot of income, and not (protect) the best interest of the child,” said Hebl, a lawyer. “This is a bill that should not see the light of day.”

On Tuesday, the State Bar of Wisconsin’s Family Law Section voted unanimously to oppose the bill, said Judge Mark Fremgen, a Jefferson County Circuit Court commissioner. The group represents 1,300 attorneys, court-ordered child advocates, family court commissioners and judges working in divorce and child-custody law.

He said the law already allows judges to depart from the set formula in cases involving high-income earners.

“Do the children really need to receive 25 percent of $400,000?” Fremgen asked. “Maybe not.”

As for custody, Fremgen said most judges start with the presumption that both parents will have custody of and a meaningful amount of physical placement with their children.

The problem comes, he said, when that is not practical or desirable.

Fremgen said there are many reasons such an arrangement may not work, ranging from geographic distance between the parents’ homes, work schedules, parents who have not previously had much contact with the child or fathers who weren’t even aware a former partner was pregnant.

“The bill is essentially saying, ‘Ignore the children. Ignore the other circumstances of the family. Just look at the money,’” Fremgen said.

But Blake said the bill would allow parents, in most cases fathers, to continue parenting after a breakup. He said he’s had limited contact with his own three children since he and his wife divorced 18 years ago.

“This legislation is too late for me and my kids,” Blake said. “I have a son. I don’t want him to go through what I and thousands of other dads have had to go through.”

You might also like

(71) comments

bluffsinview
bluffsinview

The main point is that one of Kleefisch's campagn donors wrote the bill. The same millionaire who signed his kids up for Badgercare. How low can they go? I guess there's no bottom with these guys.

GodHeals
GodHeals

Read this and learn why this legislator is a total monster

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/wealthy-divorced-donor-helped-write-controversial-child-support-bill/article_b3e3ed40-738a-52ea-bbf9-04d03cfa0e18.html

mollyr
mollyr

ETW.....actually you state what the law currently is....that placement shall be 50/50 unless circumstances dictate otherwise...like work schedule, travel schedule or alcohol or other substance abuse issues. It has nothing to do with political correctness. This proposed change isn't needed. Kleefisch is just trying to help out some of his wealthy male friends.....

mollyr
mollyr

live2talk....I don't want a blog war. But I've been in hundreds of those hearings either in a courtroom or a court commissioners hearing room. And its not because I've been divorced a hundred times either.....
Maybe your case seemed that way but I can tell you I've seen plenty of cases where it was just the opposite...dad gets primary and mom gets less. I can tell you the majority of cases end up 50/50 placement unless one of them doesn't want it, their schedule simply doesn't allow it, or theyre on drugs or they're an ax murderer. I agree that if parents are reasonable and adult they can usually work most issues out between themselves without attorneys. Again after personally observing hundreds of these cases I think the system is fair. And for the record...I've never been divorced.

mollyr
mollyr

live2talk....I don't want a blog war. But I've been in hundreds of those hearings either in a courtroom or a court commissioners hearing room. And its not because I've been divorced a hundred times either.....
Maybe your case seemed that way but I can tell you I've seen plenty of cases where it was just the opposite...dad gets primary and mom gets less. I can tell you the majority of cases end up 50/50 placement unless one of them doesn't want it, their schedule simply doesn't allow it, or theyre on drugs or they're an ax murderer. I agree that if parents are reasonable and adult they can usually work most issues out between themselves without attorneys. Again after personally observing hundreds of these cases I think the system is fair. And for the record...I've never been divorced.

EWT
EWT

The law ought to state that in all cases of contested custody, the time spent with each parent is 50% unless there is criminal or child endangerment. Any judge that does not do this should be ejected. Currently most custody time goes to the mother. Blatant, narrow minded, bigoted discrimination. If this was done to other groups like black, hispanics or other minorities it would create a national outcry. The pinnacle of political correctness.

spooky tooth
spooky tooth

Nothing is 100%, but one thing that comes close is, every kid wants to be with his mother. Thats not political correctness.

sdb53
sdb53

I understand that nobody on this board has much sympathy for rich guys but that doesn't make it right to use children to pick a man's pocket no matter how rich he is. Child support is supposed to be for the children's needs.

Check this site out: http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/tools/CRC_Calculator/default.aspx it is certainly something to consider… The parent who has three kids getting $15,000.00 per month ($180,000.00 per year!) will only need to spend $22,175.00 per year on average, with income above the national average of $60,640 to raise these kids, and that is if this parent has the kids FULL TIME. We don’t know if that is the case. It is hard to fathom a scenario where the costs to raise these kids would be over 8 times that!! Under the new law that parent would still get approximately $40,000.00 per year, nearly DOUBLE the number required by the USDA study. On top of that this is tax free, so you would need to earn around $65,000.00 per year to have that in take home pay. Having a cap is completely reasonable as support should be meant to support kid’s actual needs. The USDA study has a lot of credibility because it is non-political, and based on actual costs as collected by that government agency

irisK
irisK

I can't imagine having $15,000 a month, way beyond my dreams.

If a woman receives $15,000 a month in child support, she and her ex must have had a certain life style, which she and her children are used to. Maybe private school, fancy summer camps, expensive sports, vacations etc.

Why should the children be denied these things, just because the parents split up. Why should the woman be expected to give up that fancy lifestyle, when her ex is not required to.

array1
array1

The maintenance to the lower income earner (male or female) after divorce is not touched by this legislation. Who says children in these cases would be denied anything at all? The higher income earner can still provide private school, fancy summer camps.....

joe
joe

Every divorced father should show up at the public hearing. The stories of discrimination by our courts need to be heard. Every child deserves to have a father in their life and the courts and their social workers shouldn't have the right to indiscriminately tear a father out of a child's life.

Goodol'Joe
Goodol'Joe

Fathers who want equal or near-equal time with their children deserve to have their request considered early in the divorce process. If they, or the mothers, are found unfit or incapable, the courts still have discretion to assign a different child placement schedule with the best interest of the children at stake. There is no mandate, I repeat, no requirement for judges to grant this placement time during the pendency of a family court action. This bill does not change any statutory factors dealing with safety and fitness for parents or children. Fathers who love and care for their children should not have to spend money and undergo misery in the courts to enjoy the same treatment as mothers. Goodol'Joe

sdb53
sdb53

Many of the comments on this page simply reinforces why this bill is necessary. For example:" Lookie there, another bill to help rich white men" or "This law doesn't seem to put the children's interest first, but the divorcing father". The assumption seems to always be that is no doubt that mom will get significant if not primary placement and dad will pay. The only question then becomes-How much time will dad be allowed with his children.

Feminists should be outraged at such 1950's stereotypes that say mom is nurturer and dad is provider and still color too many court decisions. Father Knows Best has been off the air for decades. Mothers are indispensable to raising children but fathers, while nice to have around to pay the bills are not all that important in the children's lives.


joe
joe

Discrimination is bad, prejudice is bad, sexism is bad...unless it is against a man, of course. Then the biggest feminist will be the first to throw equality out the window.

GOOD DOG HAPPY MAN
GOOD DOG HAPPY MAN

@joe,

I once guest lectured at a feminist "consciousness-raising" get together at a big old flat up on Spaight Street. Nice woodwork and stained glass.

But, as their consciousness was being raised, their libidos were being lowered as the cheap Chardonnay went as extinct as a proglodyte and a "Room of One's Own".
I'll never do that again. I know what it means to become merely a sexualized toy.
They took advantage of me. Left in the wee hours cloaked in my own slutty guilt.

Men should be ashamed, too, for abdicating their responsibilities of Fatherhood.

So smile and know, behind every successful Feminasty, there's a fish with a bicycle.

GOOD DOG, HAPPY MAN

College Didn't Take
College Didn't Take

Gotch, what did you do to get banned?

joe
joe

The hypocrisy is amazing. We should do all we can to keep kids with their parents, unless it is their dad. Then, he can live in a shack and pay to support his children and see them every other weekend. What a joke. I cannot believe anyone in their right mind is opposed to giving a father the same rights as a mother.

Placement is manipulated and gamed from the beginning in the benefit of the mother. From the social workers, the the judges. The way the system works is a huge miscarriage of justice.

And of course the lawyers are against it. They are against anything that reduces their income. They get big bucks doing a half-azzed job representing their client to get more placement.

gobi
gobi

Does this guy have a friend that feels he is paying too much child support ? What other reason to put out this bill? We have judges that help determine what is fair. A solution looking for a problem OR a corrupt legislator helping a friend- either way, it's a bad idea.

joe
joe

gobi - It fixes a corrupt and discriminatory system. That is why the bill is out. Talk to any divorced father and you will understand the problems with the current system. Until you do, it is easy to assume the system works fairly.

gobi
gobi

Turns out this bill is ALL about helping a rich buddy- what a bunch of amoral legislators this state has.

PapaLorax
PapaLorax

can someone please primary this guy out of his seat? this bill will go nowhere...but simply attaching his "R" to the bill hurts the GOP by association.

to anyone still competing...he wins the craziest legislator of the year aware...and it's only 10 days into the year.

array1
array1

What's so crazy about ensuring the right of both parents to equal placement with their child??

PapaLorax
PapaLorax

1) Feeling like it is better done with a law then a courtroom full of people much more knowledgeable about the specific case
2) The financial part is pure lunacy

sdb53
sdb53

@papaLorax
Why does a courtroom full of people know what is best for a child better than the child own parent? Do you think they care about that child more than the parents do? If there is no evidence that a parent is unfit why does the state need to investigate them? Don't forget that courtroom full people goes home at night to their own families. Dad is left with looking at the wreckage of his life they leave behind.

College Didn't Take
College Didn't Take

I don't usually agree with you, but here.....yup

Comment deleted.
PapaLorax
PapaLorax

in general I find your attempt at being witty to be bad an uninformed...however this is below your normal standard...far below.

Comment deleted.
Norwood44
Norwood44

It is fair to debate politics. And it is fair to challenge politicians. But it is not fair or right to insult someone's family members. They are not political office holders. To call someone's wife "the lowest common denominator" is cheap, rude and wrong. It is a great example of how the left can be just as ignorant, rude and amoral as the Tea Party. Shame on you. By the way, your "college didn't take" conceit is a stupid concept from a simple mind.

seriouslyfolks
seriouslyfolks

Funny - most men I know have no interest in having their kids during the week (i.e., when all the real work of parenting happens). I think this is mostly about Kleefisch wanting to limit the amount of child support that his buddies have to pay - the 50/50 part is in there just to try to hide the real purpose.

joe
joe

I guess it is easier to paint every man with a broad brush. If the men you know have no interest, it must be true of all men.

array1
array1

Placement should presumed to be 50/50 for fit parents. No fit father should have to go to court to ensure equal placement.

If child support is 10% of income then a cap of $15,000 child support per month clearly would be more than enough to ensure financial stability for a child.


College Didn't Take
College Didn't Take

The children of a millionaire deserve to live like they were living when the millionaire was still around.

2dave2
2dave2

How about an updated photo of the big crane/woodchuck hunter?

spooky tooth
spooky tooth

Let the rich guys pay less and attack women. It can only be the republican party.

joe
joe

spooky - Child support is to support children. Payments to the spouse is alimony. That is something different and the "rich guys" (or women) are not limited in payments by this bill. Try not to be so sexist. All men do not attack women, either. Sure you are not a racist, too?

mollyr
mollyr

Like2talk....you're factually wrong. The law doesn't give the mother rights to placement that a father doesn't have....that simply isn't true. The law now says placement shall be whats in the best interest of the child...period. A study is done typically by an agency to determine what's best for the children and that report is given to the judges. Most of the time and 50/50 placement schedule is recommended unless schedules or some other factor doesn't make that possible. Its as fair to both parties as it can be already. This is nothing more than Kleefisch trying to help out his rich buddies. He hears these stories out at the bar where he drinks with them....

Like2Talk
Like2Talk

Mollyr, Unless you've sat in that family court commissioners room, and with no evidence and no witness, where both parents are fit and health, and with 30 minutes you have a temporary order that is "Mom primary placement, Dad Every Second Weekend" with the ensuing speedy child support calculation, then I suggest you keep your "you're factually wrong" comment in your fantasy land. The GAL's and Social Workers custody studies, with no evidence continue to support the discriminatory and abusive practices of recommending "Every Second Weekend" thereby enabling the continuation of the damage and severing of the primary parents vindictiveness - two parents with respect who teach equality, co-parent successfully, but they are not in court, only the vindictive ones are. As I say, if you have the courage, try it, if not then you become part of the divorce industry.

nan3
nan3

Sounds like a a personal story. Why is your ex so vindictive toward you?

joe
joe

Liketotalk - Make sure you show up next Wednesday in the public hearing. The current system is a sham and your story can help the ignorant understand. There certainly are quite a few ignorant people on this board. The opposition arguments are so weak I would have been embarrassed to put my name behind any of them.

Like2Talk
Like2Talk

Plus I noticed you didn't respond to truedat - why would that be? I wish we didn't need these laws as well, but while there are bad behavior parents who, rather than co-parent respectfully and equitably - use the Wisconsin Family Court system to leverage primary placement and exact revenge for the failure of their marriage on the ex-spouse, then we need these laws to protect the child's relationship with both parents. Anyone who doesn't support that is condoning child abuse by a vindictive primary parent - what a sad indictment on Wisconsin society to have so many people who support this status quo, it only perpetuates the inequality in the workplace - congratulations on your success!

array1
array1

If studies already conclude that 50/50 placement is best then why force a fit father to engage the courts to order what this bill will provide? If one parent believes placement should not be equal then let them begin the legal process.

truedat
truedat

I watched my manipulative mother destroy my father, a good man.

Judges have far too much equitable power....I.e. I will do whatever is in my hearts desire, based on how I am feeling that day. Laws should be set so mom and dad are equals going in, then it's up to the attorneys to make the case and judge to rule based on evidence.

Thee are just as many bad and twisted women out the as there are men. No child should be set or stuck either way.

Almost every sensible divorced folks I know split equal time with kids, and almost all of the cases, both parents work. It's when one side feels owed, or shafted that it goes down hill.

Plus once a parent is awarded custody, even if the custodial parents is bad, takes an act of god for it to be undone.

GodHeals
GodHeals

This guy comes up with bills constantly that would make you believe he comes from the poorest educated and most far red parts of Mississippi.

Learn about this guy ! Seriously !

http://votesmart.org/candidate/52014/joel-kleefisch

davea
davea

I came so close to throwing -up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

witness2012
witness2012

I think any law which takes away discretion from the judge, who can see the details and circumstances of each individual case, and imposes a flat standard on every case is a mistake.

The current law presumes that both parents will remain important parts in the lives of their children, but retains some flexibility to craft agreements that are in the best interest of the child, This law doesn't seem to put the children's interest first, but the divorcing father.

That's wrong. .Just wrong.

davea
davea

AGREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

array1
array1

The sad fact is that in most cases the mother gets primary placement initially and then it is up to the father to file a lawsuit to gain 50/50. The presumption should be 50/50 and if one party disagrees they are certainly free to engage the system. Also, at the initial hearing one can present their case as to why placement should not be 50/50.

Solstice
Solstice

I fail to see why you or anyone would think that it's contrary to the best interest of a child that they spend equal time with each parent. Wouldn't you agree that is the ideal situation in an intact family? Why would you not want to apply that standard to a family which is separating? Equal placement should be the rebuttable presumption, the key being rebuttable. If one or the other parent believes that this would indeed be contrary to the child's best interests, they can bring that evidence forward. Bottom line-- it is better for the children AND the parents if you start from the precept that everyone benefits from equalized placement unless proven otherwise rather from the standard that, well, it doesn't matter how often one or the other parent spends with the child, forcing the parties to fight to prove that they are good parents.

joe
joe

witness - You comment is for an ideal world. The real world is very slanted. The system is very discriminatory. It is legalized, rampant discrimination.

irisK
irisK

“The $150,000 limit is ... to prevent, for lack of a better term, gold diggers,” Blake said. “I know one guy who is paying $15,000 a month for three kids to a wife who doesn’t work at all.

She has 3 kids, and doesn't work at all. Wow just wow.

I bet when her husband lived with her, he expected a clean house and regular meals.
He likely expected to support her, and she stayed home with the kids. So now, she is expected to get a job and arrange child care. Her ex doesn't want to pay for that.
She is a gold digger, yeah, right.

Solstice
Solstice

If the ex-wife had never worked outside the home during the marriage, there'd likely be maintenance ordered in addition to child support. And then your comment would be valid. Frankly, there's not enough information provided about this particular situation to judge the person one way or the other...

Lynne4301
Lynne4301

Looks to me like Joel is getting ready to dump Becky.

irisK
irisK

They probably own a lot of furniture, so she won't be single for long.

Lynne4300
Lynne4300

Why do you make such idiotic comments, and pretend to be someone else? If you don't have enough brains to think up your own user name, then you are incapable of taking care of anyone.

College Didn't Take
College Didn't Take

Did that hit a nerve, Becky? Just keep the makeup on in case "something comes up" or he might dump you.

Lynne4301
Lynne4301

Is that you Becky? My statement made you think?

Like2Talk
Like2Talk

Wow, I just signed up to comment here using my regular public 505dad@gmail.com and I'm still waiting for my sign up email. I signed up using my private email and bingo I have an account to comment with. I guess I know which side of the fence the State Journal sits on!

But to my point, if it's OK for my daughter to spend 9 nights with Mom and 5 nights with Dad, when she gets a job it's OK for her to earn $50,000 and a man to earn $90,000 - obviously human concepts such as respect, equality, compassion and empathy are beyond most of you

witness2012
witness2012

Huh??? Your daughter isn't your property, to be equitably divided between divorced parents. I assume she has her own life and interests and commitments and the 9/5 split makes it easier for her to navigate her life.

As the innocent victim in a marriage break-up, making things as easy for her as possible should be the goal of both parents, not splitting her in half. Do what is best for her and negotiate with your co-parent. Everybody loses something in a divorce, but children should lose the least.

Like2Talk
Like2Talk

When you award a vindictive parent primary placement they will purposefully damage, if not sever the child's relationship with the other parent - that's call child abuse - if both parents were co-parenting, you wouldn't be in court nor need these laws - The State of Wisconsin guarantees the child can have a relationship with its mother, but it does not guarantee the child can have a relationship with its Father. What an enormous failure and mistreatment of our innocent children - What is best for her is to have both parents - witness2012, if you have the courage, voluntarily go to an "Every Second Weekend" Dad and see how your kids like it.

witness2012
witness2012

like, I got divorced with a child and we worked it out collaboratively and had the judge affirm our agreement. We agreed on joint custody and made sure to live close enough to each other that our daughter could easily move between households.

I have no idea empirically what the actual division of time was- it varied depending on our daughter's schedule, visits by grandparents, and our own schedule- but it was roughly equal, I guess.

Your issue is co-parenting, not child support. Working things out with your co-parent through counseling or wherever is the answer, not changing a framework for every child support case in the state.

sdb53
sdb53

This bill does NOT mandate anything other than a presumption the placement as equal as possible is in the children's best interest.

Here is the actual language:
This bill provides that, when the court allocates periods of physical placement... taking
into consideration geographic separation and accommodations for different
households, the court must presume that a placement schedule that equalizes to the
highest degree the amount of time the child may spend with each parent is in the
child's best interest

Please explain why, assuming both parents are fit and capable as most are, having both parents actively and substantially involved in their children's lives is a bad idea.

The bill still allows judges who find that one or the other parent to be unfit to rule accordingly. It does not restrict their discretion as the child placement factors that judges must consider are not affected by the bill.

JUST US
JUST US

What is the matter with this man? I was divorced with two children and paid 25% of my gross income which left me after renting an apartment as I gave up the house and furnishings with $295 a month to live on. I felt it was my obligation to try and maintain my children in the life style they had when I was a part of the family. Also having worked in the social services realm equal time split between parents is not in the best interests of the children. It is disruptive of school , their friendships and their general life style. Someone with wealth and an ax to grind must have sold Kleefisch on this one. We have no jobs or economy in this state and he attaches priority to legislation such as this. Time is long overdue to make being a legislator part-time if this is the product we're getting.

technomomwi
technomomwi

They want no one to dictate to them but rush to dictate to others.

truedat
truedat

Wouldn't this bill also apply to mothers making bug bucks?

cornflower
cornflower

Funny how it works though in a world where on average men still earn more than women and women still stay home and do not work in order to raise children and take care of the house, so the impact would fall disproportionately on women.

sdb53
sdb53

The income cap will only apply to a very small percentage of cases. Most women will not be affected at all.

cornflower
cornflower

Why should the income of parents be cut off and become inaccessible for the support of their children? HOw does that serve the interests of children. Makes you start to wonder why people get married and have children. If you don't want to share your full income with your wife and your children or your ex-wife as long as she is the mother of your children, why do it? Why get married if you're not into sharing your wealth with your family?

Solstice
Solstice

Well, because it's really hard to spend more than a certain amount to raise a child. There does come a point where 17% of a high-earner's gross income yields absurd results. A payor making $500,000 a year would be contributing $85,000 a year to the care and feeding of their one child. On what planet (other than Planet Kardashian, I suppose) can you spend that much per year on one child?

THelms
THelms

Solstice... yes it can be hard to spend $85,000 a year on a child every year but sometimes that is easy to do. Emergencies come up and things are needed. The money could be put into a separate account for the child for future use- like a car or college, which would be really hard for a single mother to afford, especially if she was used to staying home with the child and has no skills to get a good job. I get where they are coming from and want to avoid gold diggers and women taking advantage by using the money for themselves, but that isn't really fair to the single parent who stayed home while the other one worked. Not every parent who doesn't have custody but pays child support will help out with extra bills.

Frank Stoner
Frank Stoner

Lookie there, another bill to help rich white men. What a surprise.

mollyr
mollyr

Another idiotic bill from Kleefisch. Well, at least thing one doesn't invovle alcohol. Does the guy do anything remotely productive except help protect wealthy people?

mollyr
mollyr

Another idiotic bill from Kleefisch. Well, at least thing one doesn't invovle making alcohol

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it clean. Exchange ideas and opinions on posted articles. Don't promote products or services, impersonate other site users, register multiple accounts, threaten or harass others, post vulgar, abusive, obscene or sexually oriented language. Don't post content that defames or degrades anyone. Don't repost copyrighted material; link to it. In other words, stick to the topic and play nice. Report abuses by clicking the button. Users who break the rules will be banned from commenting. We no longer issue warnings. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.