"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.

And the beat goes on.............


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?


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.



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.

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?


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?

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.

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