"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?