If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message nk.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ink.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... snip You know darn well there are legal issues related to CS. Yes, Bob, there are - and his conviction (falsely or not) for murder darn well isn't one of those legal issues related to CS. Here is how his conviction is related to CS - He was sent to prison. In 1995 he attempted to get his CS suspended based on his changed circumstances. His request was denied. His CS arrearage obligation continued to accrue. Ok - so he falls on hard times, and you think the CP should just let the CS slide, right? Reverse it - CP falls on hard times - do you think the NCP should goose up the CS to help out? Or, like so many posters in this newsgroup, do you demand that the CP give up the kids to the NCP? Cause that's sure how this newsgroup reads - he falls on hard times, she's supposed to give up the CS. She falls on hard times, and she's supposed to give up the kids. |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message nk.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ink.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... snip You know darn well there are legal issues related to CS. Yes, Bob, there are - and his conviction (falsely or not) for murder darn well isn't one of those legal issues related to CS. Here is how his conviction is related to CS - He was sent to prison. In 1995 he attempted to get his CS suspended based on his changed circumstances. His request was denied. His CS arrearage obligation continued to accrue. Ok - so he falls on hard times, and you think the CP should just let the CS slide, right? I think if either parent falls on hard times the CS should be adjusted immediately to the level appropriate for the changed combined incomes and percentage contribution for both parents. I think it is grossly unfair and inequitable to force an NCP to hire an attorney, file court motions, experience delays waiting for a court hearing, and then produce questionable results, while at the same time allowing a CP to adjust what they pay based on their own decision without any court involvement. Reverse it - CP falls on hard times - do you think the NCP should goose up the CS to help out? I think the CS guidelines should be applied based on the changed circumstances for either parent. If their combined incomes comes down, the CS obligation will come down. Under your scenario, the NCP would pay a higher percentage of the total CS obligation, but the percentage would be applied against a lower CS guideline amount. The way the CS guidelines are constructed this would cause the NCP's CS obligation to stay relatively the same. Or, like so many posters in this newsgroup, do you demand that the CP give up the kids to the NCP? No. But that could be an option for the best interests of the children particularly if the CP had suffered an event that changed both their ability to work and their ability to parent. Cause that's sure how this newsgroup reads - he falls on hard times, she's supposed to give up the CS. She falls on hard times, and she's supposed to give up the kids. You are looking at parenting as something a woman wins in a court battle, but could also lose in the event of changes of circumstance. While the two issues of custody and CS are inter-related the courts view stability for the children to be an over-riding factor. If the issue of custody was always settled based on the "best interests of the children" standard this would not be debated. What we have today is a thinly disguised version of the "maternal preference" standard for custody. And that is why changes of circumstance prompt discussions over what should be done when the mother's situation changes. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
Moon has shown her true colors at long last. That to allow an NCP a
material change in circumstance, for any reason what-so ever, is abhorrent to her. Why this is so, I can only imagine. But I believe that a lot of it may have to do with her (self proclaimed) failed relationships with men, the hatred of men that her sisters at NOW apparently have pounded relentlessly into her brain, and her own blind, arrogant ignorance to the truth. It is a well established fact that the legal system does indeed allow for material changes in circumstances to occur (though it does so with great reluctance and often refuses those requests). And the when a person is jailed, as was the case in the OP, for a crime, that that most certainly qualifies as a material change in circumstance. And when that arrest is an act of fraud committed by agents of the state against an innocent man, Moon still clings to the hopeless notion that all it is a "bump in the road" and that there shouldn't be any allowances for the fraud perpetrated upon an innocent human being. The fact that he owes C$ is not the issue here. The fact that the C$ was artificially created, through a heinous act by the state, upon an innocent, is the issue. That is what is lost upon Moon. It is Moon's continuous disregard of this fact that is the crux of her lack of understanding. All she see is that an arrears is claimed to be owed and that the now freed innocent NCP must be the one to cough up the cash. She has made the claim that it's no big deal, that it's the NCP's fault for his situation. She ignores the fact that it was the state that created this situation in the first place. She also ignores the fact that the state refused a lawful request for reduction in C$ due to the change in circumstance that the same state created. To put it simply, Souter was trapped in a preverbal Catch-22 and Moon refuses to see it for what it is. Blame the man - no matter what. Yeah, that makes a hell of a lot of sense. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
"Dusty" wrote in message ... Moon has shown her true colors at long last. That to allow an NCP a material change in circumstance, for any reason what-so ever, is abhorrent to her. Which isn't even close to anything I've said. Why this is so, I can only imagine. Since you've imagined the entire thing, this isn't surprising. But I believe that a lot of it may have to do with her (self proclaimed) failed relationships with men, And I would have proclaimed this where? |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
You should reread your own posts some time.. But alas, even your own words
are beyond your comprehension. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
"Dusty" wrote in message ... You should reread your own posts some time.. But alas, even your own words are beyond your comprehension. Ah - more gratuitous slams I know exactly what I say, and I use my words fairly precisely. If you feel the need to fabricate what was said, well.......... that's very telling. So ok, we're all done. |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ink.net... "Werebat" wrote in message news:TjaFf.158396$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!! Then he needs to seek recompense from the agency that took the 13 years - do you think that his ex-wife and children were responsible, and should therefore be the ones to lose? Lose what? The support to which the children were entitled. Based on what he was earning in prison, they might be actually entitled to,what, $100 total? Do you really think his ex is owed $100 per week for his entire prison term? Did the expenses and costs of raising 2 kids somehow evaporate? No, but the expenses were met. They didn't starve. He did not purposely ignore them. He *could not* pay. This money would be "paying mom back." Not "child support." Whatever the kids lost out on cannot be repaid to them. Then you're saying that the man who was falsely imprisoned for 13 years should NOT be compensated for his wrongful incarceration? Because, after all, whatever he lost out on cannot be repaid to him? I think you're wrong. For however many years, and however many dollars, the children's household lost out an any number of things, opportunities, needs, wants, and all the rest - because the household budget was stretched that much thinner when forced to cover someone else's obligations. The woman has every right to seek recompense for that loss, in pretty much the same way the man has every right to seek recompense for his loss. Jut because the mother didn't let her children starve doesn't mean that she was forced into assuming responsibilities that were not her own, and not of her own making. Yes, if one spouse dies, then the other one has to take on the responsibilities, as well - though that's why people get life insurance :-) I'm still trying to work out why you think that his 2 children somehow didn't merit being supported. Ah, Moon. Talk about twisting words. Please shoe me where I ever, in any post ,ever said that children did not merit being supported. chuckle Why would you punish them that way? Done is done! He was current until he went to jail. The children must be grown or almost so now. The "punishment" of them losing out because dad was in jail and couldn't pay is over. Those years can't be redone. Do you think money will fix it now? Of course not - but it will sure compensate, in the same way that the man should be suing the state agencies for his wrongful imprisonment - money won't fix it, but it goes at least part way to addressing a wrong. Of course, if you REALLY want to get down to picayune semantics, he shouldn't have been in jail. Therefore, he should have been continuing to support his children. So, who would you like to blame for that one? I actually, have not been blaming people, Moon. I have been saying that it is outrageous that he has been hit with such a huge arrearage. I think everyone involved should show compassion and remove this debt from him by whatever means available. He has endured enough. Would you, in a similar circumstance, demand that money? I don't know. I DO know, however, that you don't show the same compassion for an alcoholic woman (keeping in mind that alcoholism is a desease found in the physician's guide) who is unable to support her family :-) It cuts both ways, Teach - even though you may not like it. I mean, this will probably go around and around and around - and now I'm a nice, handy target for the venom and finger pointing for which this news group is so well known. So be it. I don't recall having been venemous with you, Moon. I don't recall ever being venemous with you, although we have had some rather intense discussions. |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... snip Of course, if you REALLY want to get down to picayune semantics, he shouldn't have been in jail. Therefore, he should have been continuing to support his children. So, who would you like to blame for that one? I actually, have not been blaming people, Moon. I have been saying that it is outrageous that he has been hit with such a huge arrearage. I think everyone involved should show compassion and remove this debt from him by whatever means available. He has endured enough. Would you, in a similar circumstance, demand that money? I don't know. I DO know, however, that you don't show the same compassion for an alcoholic woman (keeping in mind that alcoholism is a desease found in the physician's guide) who is unable to support her family :-) It cuts both ways, Teach - even though you may not like it. Are you saying that choosing to drink even though you know that taking that first drink will cause a flare-ip of your disease is the same as being sent to prison for a crime you didn't commit? Alcoholism can be controlled--just don't drink. And, Moon, there is a huge difference between being unable to support your family (such as being locked up in jail) and being unwilling to do so, knowing that if you don't haul your butt out of bed and go to work, someone else will step in and provide for both you and the children you bring into the world. A huge difference. One is out of your control--and one is choice. |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
... "Dusty" wrote in message ... You should reread your own posts some time.. But alas, even your own words are beyond your comprehension. Ah - more gratuitous slams I know exactly what I say, and I use my words fairly precisely. If you feel the need to fabricate what was said, well.......... that's very telling. So ok, we're all done. yawn |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
"Dusty" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... You should reread your own posts some time.. But alas, even your own words are beyond your comprehension. Ah - more gratuitous slams I know exactly what I say, and I use my words fairly precisely. If you feel the need to fabricate what was said, well.......... that's very telling. So ok, we're all done. yawn Dusty.....are you finally tiring of ****ing in the wind? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A dentist's child abuse crime (also: Pregnant citizens: URGENT) | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 1 | September 7th 05 11:00 PM |
Paternity Fraud - US Supreme Court | Wizardlaw | Child Support | 12 | June 4th 04 02:19 AM |
Sample Supreme Court Petition | Wizardlaw | Child Support | 0 | January 16th 04 03:47 AM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | Spanking | 12 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Spanking | 16 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |