"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...

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?

Ummm, Moonie, there's one very important, and basic, fact that you've
overlooked.. The state knew EXACTLY where he was the whole time!!!

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.

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?

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.

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).

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.

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.

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

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. It arrested
the wrong guy for murder, then when it's first mistake is discovered and he
is released. Then the state hands him a bill for C$ that the state knew
full well they couldn't collect on.

To witt: 42 USC, sec. 666 -

(g) Laws voiding fraudulent transfers
In order to satisfy section 654 (20)(A) of this title, each State must have
in effect—
(1) (A) the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act of 1981; (B) the Uniform
Fraudulent Transfer Act of 1984; or (C) another law, specifying indicia of
fraud which create a prima facie case that a debtor transferred income or
property to avoid payment to a child support creditor, which the Secretary
finds affords comparable rights to child support creditors; and
(2) procedures under which, in any case in which the State knows of a
transfer by a child support debtor with respect to which such a prima facie
case is established, the State must—
(A) seek to void such transfer; or
(B) obtain a settlement in the best interests of the child support creditor.

The state is in direct violation of Federal law.

Your whole argument about his not receiving a notice from the state is
utterly foolish.

Why would he have received a notice from the state?

For the same reason you claim the CP would have.

But don't let the FACTS get in the way.. Oh, no, we
wouldn't want that to happen now would we..?

The fact is that he didn't inform the courts about his change in
employment, address or health insurance, and he further
didn't inform the child support agencies about his change in
circumstances.

How could he, the state effectively kept him from it on many levels. First
by imprisoning him for a false crime, then by not informing him of his
rights to due process - criminally or otherwise.

Why don't you hold him responsible for his own inactions?

If Larry did anything wrong, I'd be the first to say so. But the facts of
the matter are quite clear. He did nothing wrong, it's the state's fault
for his situation, not his.