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.

"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.

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.

"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?

You should reread your own posts some time.. But alas, even your own words
are beyond your comprehension.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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" 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?