"Dusty" wrote in message ...
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" 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...


snip


The criminal court system very well did - but family court, and child
support, are separate divisions.

Really? You call the criminal court system locking up an innocent man on a
trumped up charge of murder a good thing??. I'd hardly call that something
to crow about.

Well, If you look at what I've been posting, I didn't call the false imprisonment of an innocent man on a trumped up
charge of murder a good thing. Perhaps you could point out where you saw me make such a statement?


To say
that they (the state) didn't know where he was, let alone how to get a
hold
of him at a moments notice, to have a review of his C$ payments is to
claim
that the world is flat and that the moon is made of green cheddar
cheese!

I'm sorry, perhaps I missed something here - where did you see anyone
saying anything about the state knowing where he
was?

Excuse me, but what part about this guy being locked up in the state pen did
you not understand?

Perhaps you don't understand that his being locked up on murder charges, whether he committed the murder or not, is not
related to his child support case? Nor does being locked up on murder charges, whether he committed the murder or not,
automatically excuse his from his child support obligations? They're 2 separate and distinct things - and your
insistance in marrying them together is an awful lot like Bob insisting that it was someone the CP's responsibility to
advise the courts of changes in HIS circumstances.

Perhaps you have some difficulty with that whole taking personal responsibility idea?



In your rush to point out that the state sends the CP a letter ("..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.."), you
missed yet another point, the entire other side of the argument - the state
also sends a letter out to the NCP.

Apparently, not in all states, nor in all cases. You, yourself, don't get them. :-)
Now, if you'd like to argue that the state DOES send that letter to the NCP, which you have already claimed that they do
not in your other post, then perhaps the man in jail is doubly responsible for his own problems if he didn't respond to
it.



In this case, the state has no excuse that it can claim that they couldn't
find the NCP - they had him locked up! On the charge of murder, no less!
And to add insult to injury.. the state had had him there for 13 years!!
How are we to believe that they -didn't- know where he was for all that
time???

Come on, Moonie, wake up and read it again. He was INCARCERATED in a
STATE
PRISON. The state cannot, ever, make the claim that they couldn't find
him.

I don't believe that claim was made anywhere.

You implied it when you claimed that the state sends the CP a letter (every
three years) to see if the CP wants to do a review of their C$. So, what
happened to the letter that they are supposed to send to the NCP? Federal
law requires that a review be done every three years (TITLE 42, CHAPTER 7,
SUBCHAPTER IV, Part D, § 666, a/10/i/III).

Read it again. A review is required UPON REQUEST..

(10) Review and adjustment of support orders upon request.-
(A) 3-year cycle.-
(i) In general.- Procedures under which every 3 years (or such shorter cycle as the State may determine), upon the
request of either parent, or, if there is an assignment under part A of this subchapter, upon the request of the State
agency under the State plan or of either parent, the State shall with respect to a support order being enforced under
this part, taking into account the best interests of the child involved-
(I) review and, if appropriate, adjust the order in accordance with the guidelines established pursuant to section 667
(a) of this title if the amount of the child support award under the order differs from the amount that would be awarded
in accordance with the guidelines;
(II) apply a cost-of-living adjustment to the order in accordance with a formula developed by the State; or
(III) use automated methods (including automated comparisons with wage or State income tax data) to identify orders
eligible for review, conduct the review, identify orders eligible for adjustment, and apply the appropriate adjustment
to the orders eligible for adjustment under any threshold that may be established by the State.



It's not like the state didn't know what his mailing address was for the
past 13 years... Hell, they built the place, staffed it, and even delivered
him to the place. They have no excuse.

You have an elementary school on one side of town, and the high school on the other side of town. They're both schools,
both run by the state.

You expect the high school to know what the 5th grader in the elementary school is up to?

Jeez, you really seem to have difficulty with the idea that the criminal courts and the family courts don't necessarily
try to update each other's case files.

Whether it should be that way or it shouldn't be that way, that's the way it is. They don't update each other's case
files. To expect so, to demand to, to insist that it be so, is pretty unrealistic.



And for the state to IGNORE informing him of his rights (in this case,
to
reduce or stop his C$ while he was in their custody) is of such
magnitude,
that there should be a Federal inquiry.

As far as I'm aware, the state is required to tell him of his criminal
rights, in criminal proceedings. Seems to me
that the 2 are separate, and unrelated.

Not so according to:

TITLE 42, CHAPTER 7, SUBCHAPTER IV, Part D, § 666, a/10/i

(III) use automated methods (including automated comparisons with wage or
State income tax data) to identify orders eligible for review, conduct the
review, identify orders eligible for adjustment, and apply the appropriate
adjustment to the orders eligible for adjustment under any threshold that
may be established by the State.

UPON REQUEST. You left out that part.


By this, the state has no room to claim that they couldn't reach The NCP -
he was in their jail, for 13 years.

I don't believe that any such claim was made.



Why is it so hard for you to accept that the guy not only screwed up in
criminal proceedings, but then further screwed
himself by not tending to his other obligations? Doesn't he have any
personal responsibility in how he runs his own
life?

Why is it so hard for you to accept that the state screwed up.

I'm not so sure they did. Accordoing to the posts you and Bob have made on this one:

1. The CP should have gone to the courts and files a change of address/employment/insurance, even though it wasn't HER
change of address/employment/insurance

2. The man didn't advise family court that he was in jail, and should now, somehow, be off the hook for the
repercussions of his failure to act in his own best interests, as well as his attorney who failed him in his criminal
proceedings should apparently be off the hook for not only failing to keep him out of jail for a crime he didn't commit,
but also off the hook for failing to help him tend to his personal business (child support notification) prior to his
incarceration.

3. The state criminal court system and each and every county family court system should add updating each others case
files to the list of work they already have to do.

4. Each and every child support agency should go through every single one of their case files JUST IN CASE there might
be a case that maybe should be reviewed EVEN THOUGH NO ONE REQUESTED SUCH A REVIEW.

Does that about cover it?

Of course, I see loads of blame on the CP, the court system, the lawyers, the CS agencies......... funny, the only one
you don't seem to be blaming for his own inaction, even when it was not in his own best personal interests........... is
the NCP.

snip rest of this stuff where you'd like to blame someone else for the guy's own inaction