New York: Child Support Orders Against Incarcerated Parents Appropriate
 

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/fam...develo_23.html

Case Law Development: Child Support Orders Against Incarcerated Parents
Appropriate

The Family Court of New York determined that a parent who is
incarcerated at the time child support proceedings are commenced and who
is likely to remain in prison until the child has reached the age of
majority may nonetheless be assessed child support. The court found that
setting child support at zero would reward the parent for his wrongdoing
and deprive the child of possible support should the parent come into
some money or become eligible for employment. Also, the court noted
that, although New York statutes provide that the accrual of child
support for parents with incomes below the poverty line should be capped
at $500, that cap need not apply when the parent’s poverty is due to
their incarceration for crime. Finally, the court rejected parent’s
argument that the child support order should be set aside “because of
the unrealized expectations and emotional distress it will cause the
Mother and child.”(!)

Janet E. v. Antonio B., 2005 NY Slip Op 25434; 2005 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS
2265 (October 18, 2005) bgf


Seems to me that just setting the support at the guideline amount would
be simpler and more fair. If the guy/gal makes nothing in prison, 25%
of zero would be zero. If he makes $10 a week, garnish $2.50 out of
his/her check. They are basically ruling here that prisoners do not
benefit from the limiting aspect of the guidelines (no equal treatment
under the law for prisoners?), and even suggest that the person is in
prison intentionally to avoid paying CS.

New York: Child Support Orders Against Incarcerated Parents Appropriate
 

JayR wrote:
: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/fam...develo_23.html


: Seems to me that just setting the support at the guideline amount would
: be simpler and more fair. If the guy/gal makes nothing in prison, 25%
: of zero would be zero. If he makes $10 a week, garnish $2.50 out of
: his/her check. They are basically ruling here that prisoners do not
: benefit from the limiting aspect of the guidelines (no equal treatment
: under the law for prisoners?), and even suggest that the person is in
: prison intentionally to avoid paying CS.

I agree.

It's very stupid to assume someone wants to be in prison to avoid
paying CS. Additionally, through force, their wage is lowered to that
of prison wages. Yes, assess their prison wages as they'd assess their
wages if they were working a job.

What will they do next? Wait until they get out of jail and then jail
them for nonpayment of child support ? It'd be an endless loop.

Leave it to the government to screw up like this.

b.

New York: Child Support Orders Against Incarcerated Parents Appropriate
 

wrote in message
roups.com...
JayR wrote:
:
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/fam...develo_23.html

[snip]

I agree.

It's very stupid to assume someone wants to be in prison to avoid
paying CS. Additionally, through force, their wage is lowered to that
of prison wages. Yes, assess their prison wages as they'd assess their
wages if they were working a job.

What will they do next? Wait until they get out of jail and then jail
them for nonpayment of child support ? It'd be an endless loop.

Why not? Then you solve the problem of running out of deadbeats to hound
and hunt - and use as bait when new laws are about to be enacted, or like in
the case of VAWA, you need to show an example to a crowd of Congressmen to
gain their support in getting BILLIONS in TAXPAYER MONEY to spend on bull
**** programs that do nothing save line feminazi packets.

Remember the guy who, upon returning home after being a POW in the first
Gulf War (he was a civilian contractor or something and had been captured by
the Iraqis when they invaded Kuwait - or something like that) was arrested
by the local cops for failing to pay C$ while he was a POW?!?

And how about the janitor who was arrested for a murder he didn't commit?
DNA testing later proved he wasn't the killer (after serving some 10-15
years behind bars) and then the state turns around and hands him a bill for
something like $50,000 for unpaid C$ - when the state had arrested him for a
crime he didn't commit in the first place?!?

We already have examples of how the courts don't give a damn. Now they're
just making it "legal" to continue what they started. I'd love to see
something like this go to the Supremes... with luck, they'd end lower court
(read: "Family Court") bull **** rulings once and for all.

Then again, maybe not. Well, I can dream..