In one of my last blogs, I covered aspects of child custody when the greater time share parent plans on moving with the children. As noted, the court must take into consideration various elements including the child's best interests in the ultimate custodial placement.
To refine this point, I call the reader's attention a recent unpublished California Appellate Court decision worth one's reflection and review. As a cautionary note, keep in mind an unpublished opinion cannot be used as a definitive legal principle, however it can be helpful in assisting the courts, attorneys and ultimately the parties on the direction certain legal precedents may be heading.
Since every family law case and custody matter is unique to that individual family, interpreting this case and for that matter any case must be tempered by the reality that each case before the court will be decided on their specific needs, not just on what happened in some other case. With all this as a backdrop, lets look at the case known as Irpp of Oliver and Gaines-Unpublished opinion of District 2, Division 8 (filed December 22, 2009)
The facts of this case are as follows: The child was born in 2004 and always lived with mother. Father had no contact with the child for the first year and a half of the child's life. Father filed a petition for paternity and in a motion requested custody, visitation and support. Mother's response to the motion claimed father abused drugs.
In a hearing May 2006, the court held that father had almost no contact with the child in spite of mother's efforts to facilitate a relationship. The court also determined that the child has special needs and that father did not have the capacity to care for his son. There also was some concern over the allegations of father's drug use.
For these reasons, the court awarded mother physical and legal custody with a detailed visitation plan for father.
In November 2006, mother petitioned the court for permission to move to Houston TX. It should be noted that mother had never lived in Houston nor did she have family in that area. Mother claimed that the move would be to a better more affordable community.
Father objected to the move claiming that the move would impair his fledgling relationship with his child and consequently the request to move to the other state should be denied.
At hearing, the trial court determined that the move was inappropriate and was denied. The court reasoned that the child would be prejudiced by a move to Texas because:" at a distance, mother's tendency to look for loopholes will increase the likelihood of diminished contact with father". The trial court also noted that the expense of travel and father's limited financial means could put father in a position where he would just give up on trying to see the child due to those economic limitations.
Mother appealed and in the unpublished opinion, the court affirmed the lower court's decision to prevent the move noting that the court must consider when a parent requests to move the following factors:
1. The children's interest in stability and continuity in the custodial relationship.
2. The distance of the move.
3. The age of the children.
4. The children's relationship with both parents.
5. The relationship between the parents and their ability to communicate and cooperate effectively and their willingness to put the children's rather than their needs first.
6. The wishes of the children if they are mature enough to express them and such an inquiry is appropriate.
7. The reasons for the proposed move
8. The extent to which the parents currently are sharing custody.
In this particular case, even though father had not really started his parenting relationship with the child, the court felt keeping the child in California was the best chance that the needs of the child on developing a relationship with his father would be met.
To conclude, child custody and move away cases are extremely complex. Each fact pattern will be assessed differently by the judge to meet the needs of each case. For these reasons, getting legal representation from a highly skilled attorney with many years experience in the field of family law increases the chances of achieving your goals in developing the best outcome for you and your children.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Child Custody: Can You Move With the Kids to Get a Better Job or Find a Less Expensive Community?
The economy has caused many families to reconsider their current living situations. Record numbers of home foreclosures abound giving rise to the need to find new housing and, in some instances, different and less expensive communities in which to live and work.
When a custodial parent loses their job or must move, a companion issue may present itself. How far away can you move with the children?
The law in this area (commonly refered to "move away cases" )has evolved over the years. A century ago, the man was considered the head of the household and, in that role, was given free rein to pick up and move with his children wherever he pleased. To counter that, the courts typically awarded children to the mother under the 'tender years docterine': if the child(ren) were young, the courts would tyically award sole custody of the childern to the mother.
Much has changed since the early 20th century. Family systems regularly have both parents playing a significant role in parenting the children. In 1980, the California Legislature amended the Family Code to expressly declare it to be a policy of California to "assure minor children of frequent and continuing contact with both parents".
This law ,as well as the courts recognition of the psychological benifits of children having significant relationships with both mother and father, led courts to become more protective of the rights of a non-moving parent.
So, here we are today. Where does this area of law leave a parent that must relocate to live in a less expensive community or to find a new a job?
Courts today look at a number of factors in establishing how the custodial plan should play out with a move. The court must look at the child's interest in stability and continuity in the custodial relationship as well as practical considerations such as the distence of the move, the age of the child, the child's wishes assuming the child is sufficiently mature to have an informed opinion.
If the court feels that these parenting relations can be maintained, then the move would be allowed. However, if the court felt the move was too disruptive to the child's relationship to the non moving parent, the court may rule that the children should be in the custodial care of the non moving parent.
Consequently, courts have the broadest discretion and the courts orders are effectively not appealable since great deference is given to judicial discretion by the appellate courts.
If you are planning to move or are the parent facing a motion requesting that the other parent move away with the children, you and your childrens legal rights will be determined by the judge assigned to hear your case. Therefore, it is critical that in proceeding to court, you secure the best chance possible on a favorable outcome by having a skilled family law attorney represent you in this life changing legal matter.
When a custodial parent loses their job or must move, a companion issue may present itself. How far away can you move with the children?
The law in this area (commonly refered to "move away cases" )has evolved over the years. A century ago, the man was considered the head of the household and, in that role, was given free rein to pick up and move with his children wherever he pleased. To counter that, the courts typically awarded children to the mother under the 'tender years docterine': if the child(ren) were young, the courts would tyically award sole custody of the childern to the mother.
Much has changed since the early 20th century. Family systems regularly have both parents playing a significant role in parenting the children. In 1980, the California Legislature amended the Family Code to expressly declare it to be a policy of California to "assure minor children of frequent and continuing contact with both parents".
This law ,as well as the courts recognition of the psychological benifits of children having significant relationships with both mother and father, led courts to become more protective of the rights of a non-moving parent.
So, here we are today. Where does this area of law leave a parent that must relocate to live in a less expensive community or to find a new a job?
Courts today look at a number of factors in establishing how the custodial plan should play out with a move. The court must look at the child's interest in stability and continuity in the custodial relationship as well as practical considerations such as the distence of the move, the age of the child, the child's wishes assuming the child is sufficiently mature to have an informed opinion.
If the court feels that these parenting relations can be maintained, then the move would be allowed. However, if the court felt the move was too disruptive to the child's relationship to the non moving parent, the court may rule that the children should be in the custodial care of the non moving parent.
Consequently, courts have the broadest discretion and the courts orders are effectively not appealable since great deference is given to judicial discretion by the appellate courts.
If you are planning to move or are the parent facing a motion requesting that the other parent move away with the children, you and your childrens legal rights will be determined by the judge assigned to hear your case. Therefore, it is critical that in proceeding to court, you secure the best chance possible on a favorable outcome by having a skilled family law attorney represent you in this life changing legal matter.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Willful Failure to Pay Child Support Can Be a Federal Crime
As if it wasn't enough to be financially crushed by the worst economy in decades, if you are obligated to pay child support and willfully fail to do so, you can be on the receiving end of a criminal conviction.
Times are really tough. People are losing their homes due to foreclosure and seeing their jobs vanish due to a flattened economy that remains on life support. For those people obligated to pay support and haven't, there is the additional risk that they may suffer State or Federal prosecution if they are not paying their child support.
A recently published case on point United States v Davis (12/18/09) 8 Cir No. 08-3692(Riley) 2009 WL 4877587 determined that under the Child Support Recovery Act (CSRA) the government in prosecuting a parent for failure to pay child support need not show that the defendant was able to pay the total child support arrearage and willfully failed to do so but only that the defendant was able to pay part and willfully failed to do so.
In brief, father and mother separated in 1996. This relationship was a non marital relationship. Consequently,mother filed a request to establish fathers paternity and got a court order confirming he was the father of their two children as well as an order for father to pay child support.
Father seemed to always stay one step head of any income withholding order and kept changing jobs. By 2008, father owed over $52,000.00 in unpaid support. A federal Grand Jury handed down a two count indictment against father for violating CSRA for willful failure to pay his child support obligation. At the end of his trial, father was found guilty and sentenced to 2 years in federal prison and 1 additional year of supervised parole.
Father appealed the trial court ruling and sentence.The appellate court affirmed father's conviction. On review of the trial court proceedings, the appellate court felt the evidence was sufficient to establish willfulness because the defendant father could have paid more than he actually paid.
What does this all mean? The main message sent by the court is that if you owe any amount of support and fail to pay some if not all that you owe, then you could be convicted of a crime and face serious jail time.
If you owe support and can't pay it, take steps to work directly with the child support collection services to pay something on account of the support. If you are really in bad financial shape, you have to file a motion in the proper court to ask the judge to reduce your support payments and give you time to pay any arrearages.
Even though there is a cost for a skilled family law attorney to represent you on filing a motion to reduce support and negotiate support arrearages, the investment in getting the proper legal help may make the difference between freedom or jail. .
Times are really tough. People are losing their homes due to foreclosure and seeing their jobs vanish due to a flattened economy that remains on life support. For those people obligated to pay support and haven't, there is the additional risk that they may suffer State or Federal prosecution if they are not paying their child support.
A recently published case on point United States v Davis (12/18/09) 8 Cir No. 08-3692(Riley) 2009 WL 4877587 determined that under the Child Support Recovery Act (CSRA) the government in prosecuting a parent for failure to pay child support need not show that the defendant was able to pay the total child support arrearage and willfully failed to do so but only that the defendant was able to pay part and willfully failed to do so.
In brief, father and mother separated in 1996. This relationship was a non marital relationship. Consequently,mother filed a request to establish fathers paternity and got a court order confirming he was the father of their two children as well as an order for father to pay child support.
Father seemed to always stay one step head of any income withholding order and kept changing jobs. By 2008, father owed over $52,000.00 in unpaid support. A federal Grand Jury handed down a two count indictment against father for violating CSRA for willful failure to pay his child support obligation. At the end of his trial, father was found guilty and sentenced to 2 years in federal prison and 1 additional year of supervised parole.
Father appealed the trial court ruling and sentence.The appellate court affirmed father's conviction. On review of the trial court proceedings, the appellate court felt the evidence was sufficient to establish willfulness because the defendant father could have paid more than he actually paid.
What does this all mean? The main message sent by the court is that if you owe any amount of support and fail to pay some if not all that you owe, then you could be convicted of a crime and face serious jail time.
If you owe support and can't pay it, take steps to work directly with the child support collection services to pay something on account of the support. If you are really in bad financial shape, you have to file a motion in the proper court to ask the judge to reduce your support payments and give you time to pay any arrearages.
Even though there is a cost for a skilled family law attorney to represent you on filing a motion to reduce support and negotiate support arrearages, the investment in getting the proper legal help may make the difference between freedom or jail. .
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Staying Together for the Sake of the Economy (not the kids)?
I just read an interesting article concerning the shift in divorce rates that may be influenced by the economy. The AOL article by Barbara Bartlien claims that divorce filings have remained roughly the same in every single state in the 2006-2008 period. She acquired this piece of information from the Center for Disease Control National Center for Health Statistical Data.
She concluded that since the population is growing that the fact the divorces remain about the same suggests a big drop off in people ending their marriages. She goes on to point out that "divorce filings have been slashed by one-third in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New York -- northeastern states with heavy exposure to the financial industry that has been battered by today's credit debacle."
Statistics are only as good as the interpretation applied to them. Some would interpret her findings a flawed in that the measure of successful or failed marriages (primary relationships) may or may not have a direct correlation with the actual number of divorce filings.
Marriages are not the only way people form committed partnerships. Many couples have elected to opt out of marriage for one reason or another yet live together, have kids and run their lives as a committed couple. I see a number of these relationships when they end as clients coming in to establish paternity and request child support from the family law courts.
I've observed the economy expand and contract over the last three decades and in that same time period witnessed the impact these events have on the stability of marital and other primary relationships.
Quite simply, a bad economy does not make a bad relationship any better.
It true that some couples may try to stay together in rough economic times but inevitably if the couple does not invest in trying to fix the relationship (if it can be fixed) then invariably, the relationship must end.
I have spent many hundreds hours counseling prospective clients and clients in bad relationships coming apart in bad economic times. Staying together for the sake of the economy, just like the fable of staying together for the sake of the kids ultimately does not work and in fact can create more problems when you finally get to the point of ending the relationship.
If you have kids in these situations, they suffer directly from the fighting that takes place in the house. Even if the parents think they have their emotions under wraps by speaking infrequently to each other in front of the kids and sleeping in different bedrooms, the children witness this and learn the worst about how to deal with conflict in an unhealthy relationship.
Even without kids, staying together invites the escalation of conflict, damaging management of community credit and resources and the likelihood that once you finally separate and go through the legal process, the hostility driving the separating couple will translate in more attorney fees being spent on getting the case and property issues under control.
Face the facts, if you know the relationship is at an end, do the proper cost benefit analysis that includes the emotional cost to you and to any children by prolonging a relationship that must end.
She concluded that since the population is growing that the fact the divorces remain about the same suggests a big drop off in people ending their marriages. She goes on to point out that "divorce filings have been slashed by one-third in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New York -- northeastern states with heavy exposure to the financial industry that has been battered by today's credit debacle."
Statistics are only as good as the interpretation applied to them. Some would interpret her findings a flawed in that the measure of successful or failed marriages (primary relationships) may or may not have a direct correlation with the actual number of divorce filings.
Marriages are not the only way people form committed partnerships. Many couples have elected to opt out of marriage for one reason or another yet live together, have kids and run their lives as a committed couple. I see a number of these relationships when they end as clients coming in to establish paternity and request child support from the family law courts.
I've observed the economy expand and contract over the last three decades and in that same time period witnessed the impact these events have on the stability of marital and other primary relationships.
Quite simply, a bad economy does not make a bad relationship any better.
It true that some couples may try to stay together in rough economic times but inevitably if the couple does not invest in trying to fix the relationship (if it can be fixed) then invariably, the relationship must end.
I have spent many hundreds hours counseling prospective clients and clients in bad relationships coming apart in bad economic times. Staying together for the sake of the economy, just like the fable of staying together for the sake of the kids ultimately does not work and in fact can create more problems when you finally get to the point of ending the relationship.
If you have kids in these situations, they suffer directly from the fighting that takes place in the house. Even if the parents think they have their emotions under wraps by speaking infrequently to each other in front of the kids and sleeping in different bedrooms, the children witness this and learn the worst about how to deal with conflict in an unhealthy relationship.
Even without kids, staying together invites the escalation of conflict, damaging management of community credit and resources and the likelihood that once you finally separate and go through the legal process, the hostility driving the separating couple will translate in more attorney fees being spent on getting the case and property issues under control.
Face the facts, if you know the relationship is at an end, do the proper cost benefit analysis that includes the emotional cost to you and to any children by prolonging a relationship that must end.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
PATERNITY LAWS IN CALIFORNIA
Paternity refers to the legal determination of who is the biological father of a child. Normally, the identity of the biological mother is known yet the father's identity might not be certain. When I started my law practice in 1978, the type of testing available then would only determine if you would be more likely than not to be the biological father.
Today, we have sophisticated DNA testing that allows for a 99.9% certainty of parentage. The DNA sample taken from the child and potential father is examined by a scientist trained to determine the significance of the test samples. DNA testing is generally only done if a party contests paternity. Typically, a presumed father will ask for DNA testing to ascertain the parentage of the child and to insure that if he is legally responsible to pay support, he is paying support for a child that is his.
A potential father may also demand testing to establish that a child is his in order to have legal standing to ask for custody and visitation with the child.
Paternity issues, like most family law issues can have far reaching implications, both financially and emotionally. For these reasons, it is important to secure the services of a qualified attorney experienced in the area of family law.
Today, we have sophisticated DNA testing that allows for a 99.9% certainty of parentage. The DNA sample taken from the child and potential father is examined by a scientist trained to determine the significance of the test samples. DNA testing is generally only done if a party contests paternity. Typically, a presumed father will ask for DNA testing to ascertain the parentage of the child and to insure that if he is legally responsible to pay support, he is paying support for a child that is his.
A potential father may also demand testing to establish that a child is his in order to have legal standing to ask for custody and visitation with the child.
Paternity issues, like most family law issues can have far reaching implications, both financially and emotionally. For these reasons, it is important to secure the services of a qualified attorney experienced in the area of family law.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Divorce and Health Care for the Unemployed: More Help From Congress
More help for unemployed and divorced spouses
COBRA CONTINUATION HEALTH COVERAGE
In 1986, Congress passed the landmark Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) health benefit provisions. The law amends the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the Internal Revenue Code and the Public Health Service Act to provide continuation of group health coverage that otherwise might be terminated.
WHAT COBRA DOES
COBRA provides certain former employees, retirees, spouses, former spouses, and dependent children the right to temporary continuation of health coverage at group rates. This coverage, however, is only available when coverage is lost due to certain specific events. Group health coverage for COBRA participants is usually more expensive than health coverage for active employees, since usually the employer pays a part of the premium for active employees while COBRA participants generally pay the entire premium themselves. It is ordinarily less expensive, though, than individual health coverage.
Under COBRA, participants, covered spouses and dependent children may continue their plan coverage for a limited time when they would otherwise lose coverage due to a particular event, such as divorce (or legal separation). A covered employee’s spouse who would lose coverage due to a divorce may elect continuation coverage under the plan for a maximum of 36 months. A qualified beneficiary must notify the plan administrator of a qualifying event within 60 days after divorce or legal separation. After being notified of a divorce, the plan administrator must give notice, generally within 14 days, to the qualified beneficiary of the right to elect COBRA continuation coverage.
EXTENDED COVERAGE PASSED BY CONGRESS
Congress, under pressure to provide additional help for people who have lost their jobs and health benefits, passed legislation to extend federal subsidies to help people pay for their former employer’s health insurance. Lawmakers also agreed to extend the eligibility period to sign up for assistance.
As part of the stimulus bill passed in February 2009, the federal government subsidized 65 percent of the cost for unemployed people who opted to continue their employer’s health insurance coverage. A person can pay to stay on his or her former employer’s group policy — generally for a maximum of 18 months - through the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, a federal law better known as Cobra.
But the assistance program was open only to people who lost their jobs through the end of 2009, and the subsidy lasted only nine months, so starting Dec. 1 2009, many people were faced with ending their insurance coverage or paying the full amount.
CONGRESS EXTENDS ELIGIBILITY FOR THE UNEMPLOYED
The new law extends the eligibility to sign up for the program through the end of February 2010, so people who are laid off in January and February will qualify. It also adds six months of subsidies, extending coverage assistance for a total of 15 months.
The Senate passed the legislation on Saturday to extend the program as part of a $636 billion defense spending measure, which was signed by the president later that day.
The House had passed the proposal last week.
Without subsidies, the average monthly Cobra payment for a California family is $1,107, similar to the national average, according to Families USA, a consumer advocacy group. With the federal subsidy paying 65 percent of the cost, that payment drops to $388.
The extra help is important because even if a health overhaul bill is passed before the end of the year, it's not likely to help people immediately, said Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access California, a consumer advocacy group.
Early Monday, Senate Democrats prevailed 60-40 in a procedural vote that showed they had the votes they need to pass the Senate's overhaul bill.
The measure, which is on track to be passed before Christmas Eve, would still have to be reconciled with the health care bill passed by the House in November.
"This is an important bridge, not just for folks who are unemployed but those who find their new job or temporary job and do not have health coverage," said Wright, adding that many of the key proposals in a reform bill won't go into effect for several years.
Wright said the extra aid is especially helpful for those in California, where the unemployment rate was 12.3 percent last month. The national average is 10 percent.
MORE INFORMATION ON YOUR COVERAGE
Divorced spouses may call their plan administrator or the EBSA Toll-Free number, 1.866.444.EBSA (3272) if they have questions about COBRA continuation coverage or their rights under ERISA.
COBRA CONTINUATION HEALTH COVERAGE
In 1986, Congress passed the landmark Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) health benefit provisions. The law amends the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the Internal Revenue Code and the Public Health Service Act to provide continuation of group health coverage that otherwise might be terminated.
WHAT COBRA DOES
COBRA provides certain former employees, retirees, spouses, former spouses, and dependent children the right to temporary continuation of health coverage at group rates. This coverage, however, is only available when coverage is lost due to certain specific events. Group health coverage for COBRA participants is usually more expensive than health coverage for active employees, since usually the employer pays a part of the premium for active employees while COBRA participants generally pay the entire premium themselves. It is ordinarily less expensive, though, than individual health coverage.
Under COBRA, participants, covered spouses and dependent children may continue their plan coverage for a limited time when they would otherwise lose coverage due to a particular event, such as divorce (or legal separation). A covered employee’s spouse who would lose coverage due to a divorce may elect continuation coverage under the plan for a maximum of 36 months. A qualified beneficiary must notify the plan administrator of a qualifying event within 60 days after divorce or legal separation. After being notified of a divorce, the plan administrator must give notice, generally within 14 days, to the qualified beneficiary of the right to elect COBRA continuation coverage.
EXTENDED COVERAGE PASSED BY CONGRESS
Congress, under pressure to provide additional help for people who have lost their jobs and health benefits, passed legislation to extend federal subsidies to help people pay for their former employer’s health insurance. Lawmakers also agreed to extend the eligibility period to sign up for assistance.
As part of the stimulus bill passed in February 2009, the federal government subsidized 65 percent of the cost for unemployed people who opted to continue their employer’s health insurance coverage. A person can pay to stay on his or her former employer’s group policy — generally for a maximum of 18 months - through the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, a federal law better known as Cobra.
But the assistance program was open only to people who lost their jobs through the end of 2009, and the subsidy lasted only nine months, so starting Dec. 1 2009, many people were faced with ending their insurance coverage or paying the full amount.
CONGRESS EXTENDS ELIGIBILITY FOR THE UNEMPLOYED
The new law extends the eligibility to sign up for the program through the end of February 2010, so people who are laid off in January and February will qualify. It also adds six months of subsidies, extending coverage assistance for a total of 15 months.
The Senate passed the legislation on Saturday to extend the program as part of a $636 billion defense spending measure, which was signed by the president later that day.
The House had passed the proposal last week.
Without subsidies, the average monthly Cobra payment for a California family is $1,107, similar to the national average, according to Families USA, a consumer advocacy group. With the federal subsidy paying 65 percent of the cost, that payment drops to $388.
The extra help is important because even if a health overhaul bill is passed before the end of the year, it's not likely to help people immediately, said Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access California, a consumer advocacy group.
Early Monday, Senate Democrats prevailed 60-40 in a procedural vote that showed they had the votes they need to pass the Senate's overhaul bill.
The measure, which is on track to be passed before Christmas Eve, would still have to be reconciled with the health care bill passed by the House in November.
"This is an important bridge, not just for folks who are unemployed but those who find their new job or temporary job and do not have health coverage," said Wright, adding that many of the key proposals in a reform bill won't go into effect for several years.
Wright said the extra aid is especially helpful for those in California, where the unemployment rate was 12.3 percent last month. The national average is 10 percent.
MORE INFORMATION ON YOUR COVERAGE
Divorced spouses may call their plan administrator or the EBSA Toll-Free number, 1.866.444.EBSA (3272) if they have questions about COBRA continuation coverage or their rights under ERISA.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Recession and Divorce: Help Is on the way
Help from the Government may be a silver lining
No one can argue with the fact that this nation has suffered the worst recession since the Great Depression. Everyone has experienced some kind of financial setbacks. Many have lost their jobs, homes, and their sense of worth.
Even harder hit are people going through a divorce. Even in the best of economies, the financial and emotional toll taken on people engaged in a divorce is high.
Washington is responding in their own way to the problems by creating stimulus programs to ease the pain. One of the programs on the verge of phase out may be getting new life and be broadened to include other steps to help those in need of financial relief. The programs I am referring to includes the First Time Homebuyer Credit and Unemployment Benefits.
This program is being extended by H.R. 3548.
The House is poised to send the White House a bill extending aid to over a million people in danger of exhausting jobless benefits and additional tax credits for prospective homebuyers crucial to rejuvenating the housing market.
The $24 billion package also contains tax credits aimed at struggling businesses. The House is scheduled to vote on the legislation Thursday, a day after the Senate passed it 98-0.
With some 7,000 people running out of unemployment benefits every day and the current $8,000 tax credit for first-time home buyers set to expire at the end of the month, President Barack Obama is expected to quickly sign the measure into law.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said the bill was "vital to Americans who have lost their jobs as a result of the deepest recession in over three-quarters of a century."
The bill would provide every American running out of unemployment insurance benefits this year with an additional 14 weeks. The out-of-work in states with jobless rates at 8.5 percent or greater would get six weeks on top of that.
It would also extend for seven months the $8,000 tax credit for first-time homebuyers that were enacted as part of the $787 billion stimulus package passed last February. The program would be expanded with a $6,500 credit for homebuyers who have lived in their current residences for five years.
Finally, it would allow businesses that have incurred losses in 2008 and 2009 to seek refunds for taxes paid on profits over the past five years.
The package, said Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., a leader on the unemployment issue, will "help nearly 2 million Americans who are still unable to find work, protect small businesses struggling in this challenging economic climate and stimulate economic activity to help create jobs and grow our economy."
The extension would be the fourth since June of last year and could result in giving an out-of-work person in one of the harder-hit states up to 99 weeks of benefits, well above the previous record of 65 during the 1970s.
Supporters argued that this help was necessary when 15 million unemployed are competing for about 3 million jobs and the unemployment rate continues to inch up despite some signs of economic recovery.
"There is no place today in the United States that does not see a serious crisis in unemployment," said Democratic Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, where the 13 percent unemployment rate exceeds the national rate of 9.8 percent.
The $2.4 billion cost of extending unemployment benefits is offset by extending through June 2011 the federal unemployment tax that employers pay for each employee.
All families struggling with job losses, devalued homes and continued economic uncertainty will benefit from this bill. The Bill is clearly good news for those people trying to sell their home as part of a divorce settlement and trying to make ends meet while they look for new employment to support themselves and their children.
No one can argue with the fact that this nation has suffered the worst recession since the Great Depression. Everyone has experienced some kind of financial setbacks. Many have lost their jobs, homes, and their sense of worth.
Even harder hit are people going through a divorce. Even in the best of economies, the financial and emotional toll taken on people engaged in a divorce is high.
Washington is responding in their own way to the problems by creating stimulus programs to ease the pain. One of the programs on the verge of phase out may be getting new life and be broadened to include other steps to help those in need of financial relief. The programs I am referring to includes the First Time Homebuyer Credit and Unemployment Benefits.
This program is being extended by H.R. 3548.
The House is poised to send the White House a bill extending aid to over a million people in danger of exhausting jobless benefits and additional tax credits for prospective homebuyers crucial to rejuvenating the housing market.
The $24 billion package also contains tax credits aimed at struggling businesses. The House is scheduled to vote on the legislation Thursday, a day after the Senate passed it 98-0.
With some 7,000 people running out of unemployment benefits every day and the current $8,000 tax credit for first-time home buyers set to expire at the end of the month, President Barack Obama is expected to quickly sign the measure into law.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said the bill was "vital to Americans who have lost their jobs as a result of the deepest recession in over three-quarters of a century."
The bill would provide every American running out of unemployment insurance benefits this year with an additional 14 weeks. The out-of-work in states with jobless rates at 8.5 percent or greater would get six weeks on top of that.
It would also extend for seven months the $8,000 tax credit for first-time homebuyers that were enacted as part of the $787 billion stimulus package passed last February. The program would be expanded with a $6,500 credit for homebuyers who have lived in their current residences for five years.
Finally, it would allow businesses that have incurred losses in 2008 and 2009 to seek refunds for taxes paid on profits over the past five years.
The package, said Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., a leader on the unemployment issue, will "help nearly 2 million Americans who are still unable to find work, protect small businesses struggling in this challenging economic climate and stimulate economic activity to help create jobs and grow our economy."
The extension would be the fourth since June of last year and could result in giving an out-of-work person in one of the harder-hit states up to 99 weeks of benefits, well above the previous record of 65 during the 1970s.
Supporters argued that this help was necessary when 15 million unemployed are competing for about 3 million jobs and the unemployment rate continues to inch up despite some signs of economic recovery.
"There is no place today in the United States that does not see a serious crisis in unemployment," said Democratic Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, where the 13 percent unemployment rate exceeds the national rate of 9.8 percent.
The $2.4 billion cost of extending unemployment benefits is offset by extending through June 2011 the federal unemployment tax that employers pay for each employee.
All families struggling with job losses, devalued homes and continued economic uncertainty will benefit from this bill. The Bill is clearly good news for those people trying to sell their home as part of a divorce settlement and trying to make ends meet while they look for new employment to support themselves and their children.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
