"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:TjaFf.158396$oG.37265@dukeread02...

Here is a more detailed account of the case:


http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...602040317/1001
/news

Sadly, the focus in cases like this one are on the NCP father and his
"failure" to seek a CS change. The deputy DA in the story above takes
it a
step further and talks about how the CP mother was forced to support
her
children over the years without any financial support.

So what's wrong with this picture?

Well, for openers, the states selectively apply the CS statutes
ignoring
statutory requirements when they don't work to their advantage. In
this
case where were the 2-3 year interval CS order reviews to determine if
the
ordered amount was still appropriate? The original CS order was from
1987.
The man went to prison in 1992. Why was no CS review completed during
that
5 year period or the subsequent 13 year period he was in prison?

Because the review isn't automatic. They send a letter to the
recipient of the child support, who can elect to have the review done,
or ignore it, in which case the review isn't done.


And secondly, why isn't the deputy DA being held accountable for
failing to
do his job to review CS orders like this one that have good cause
reasons
for reductions?

And precisely how was anyone supposed to know that a review should have
been done? Or are you suggesting that they review every single CS
case?

The public officials never admit their failures to follow
the statutory requirements in the law.

As far as I'm aware, having been the recipient of the letter offering
to do a review - there IS no statutory requirement to review a care
periodically - at least, not in my state.

It's pretty obvious the state knew
this guy was in prison, they knew if they did a CS review they would
be
forced to reduce or stop the CS order, so they did nothing.

Perhaps they did no review because none was requested?

The reported
facts indicate the state failed to do it's job over an 18 year period.

The facts indicate that the recipient of the CS didn't request a
review.


And third, why does the mother get a free pass for what is most likely
a
violation of a court decree to notify the court or the state of any
changes
in address, employment, or insurance coverage? Those types of
parental
requirements are broiler plate language in all decrees. Why is she
allowed
to profit from her inaction? Why isn't the mother being charged with
contempt of court for her failure to follow a court order?

Perhaps she didn't have any changes? She is required to notify any
changes in HER employment, employment and insurance coverage. In
reading the articles from both cites, there is no indication that she
had any changes - at least, nothing was mentioned.

So now, let's turn it around. Why didn't the obligor notify the courts
of any changes in address, employment or insurance coverage? Why
should he be allowed to profit from his inaction? Why shouldn't he be
charged with contempt of court for his failure to follow a court order?

Ummmm....please explain how the poor guy who owes 50,000+ has profited
by his inaction? I, personally, do not think he should owe a penny!!
He had 13 years of his life stolen from him!!

Ooops--$30,000--not 50

Well, in it's simplest terms, he profited by not paying that money per
month. I still don't see why his ex and children should pay the price,
they're not the ones who took 13 years of the man's life.

How did he profit? He wasn't earning money that he got to keep rather than
pay to her. If his ex had wanted the $$ to be collected, don't you think
she could have filed a complaint? Instead of jumping on the "poor me" stump
when he is finally released from his wrongful imprisonment and proclaiming
the hardships *she* suffered in raising her own children while he rotted in
prison for a crime he didn't commit? She made it through those years--why
does she feel she is owed any repayment? She sounds like a greedy, selfish
shrew to me. Even if she no longer cares for him, she can at least have
some sympathy for what he went through. Unless, of course, she thinks he
might file an unlawful imprisonment lawsuit against the state, and she wants
to make sure she gets a sizeable piece of the pie.