Court Tells NJ Inmate To Keep Paying Child Support

I thought the Bradley amendment prohibited lowering child support
retroactively...once there is an arrears, it cannot be obilterated by lowing
it. If this is true, the guy is triple f*ucked.

"Anx99" wrote in message
...
I thought the Bradley amendment prohibited lowering child support
retroactively...once there is an arrears, it cannot be obilterated by
lowing
it. If this is true, the guy is triple f*ucked.

You are so on the mark!

Yes, the Bradley amendment did just that - once an amount of CS is
determined it cannot be lowered - for any reason, EVER.

So you'd better never get laid-off from your job (we all know that this
NEVER happens in real life, right?). Your car had NEVER better break down,
get totaled, rust out or just blow up. And you'd better NEVER EVER get
sick, need to be hospitalized, have an operation, have an accident that
would prevent you from working, end up with reduced hours, get fired, the
company fold up it's tents and move overseas or close it's doors for good,
or any other reason that would slow or otherwise stop the flow of cash into
the states loving arms.

The result... You go directly to jail. No trial for you, you're in
"contempt of court" for "failure to pay" your debt.

Oh and if you think that you can have your CS payments reduced or stopped
while your in jail for the crime (in most states non-payment of CS is a
felony!) of "failure to pay" - forget it. You'll still accrue an arrears
even while you're in the joint! So once you're released, you'll go right
back in again for... You guessed it - "failure to pay"!!

It's a no-win situation if ever there was one. Where's Captain Kirk when
you need him?

"Anx99" wrote in message
...
I thought the Bradley amendment prohibited lowering child support
retroactively...once there is an arrears, it cannot be obilterated by
lowing
it. If this is true, the guy is triple f*ucked.

You are so on the mark!

Yes, the Bradley amendment did just that - once an amount of CS is
determined it cannot be lowered - for any reason, EVER.

So you'd better never get laid-off from your job (we all know that this
NEVER happens in real life, right?). Your car had NEVER better break down,
get totaled, rust out or just blow up. And you'd better NEVER EVER get
sick, need to be hospitalized, have an operation, have an accident that
would prevent you from working, end up with reduced hours, get fired, the
company fold up it's tents and move overseas or close it's doors for good,
or any other reason that would slow or otherwise stop the flow of cash into
the states loving arms.

The result... You go directly to jail. No trial for you, you're in
"contempt of court" for "failure to pay" your debt.

Oh and if you think that you can have your CS payments reduced or stopped
while your in jail for the crime (in most states non-payment of CS is a
felony!) of "failure to pay" - forget it. You'll still accrue an arrears
even while you're in the joint! So once you're released, you'll go right
back in again for... You guessed it - "failure to pay"!!

It's a no-win situation if ever there was one. Where's Captain Kirk when
you need him?

"Anx99" wrote in message
...
I thought the Bradley amendment prohibited lowering child support
retroactively...once there is an arrears, it cannot be obilterated by
lowing
it. If this is true, the guy is triple f*ucked.

You are so on the mark!

Yes, the Bradley amendment did just that - once an amount of CS is
determined it cannot be lowered - for any reason, EVER.

So you'd better never get laid-off from your job (we all know that this
NEVER happens in real life, right?). Your car had NEVER better break down,
get totaled, rust out or just blow up. And you'd better NEVER EVER get
sick, need to be hospitalized, have an operation, have an accident that
would prevent you from working, end up with reduced hours, get fired, the
company fold up it's tents and move overseas or close it's doors for good,
or any other reason that would slow or otherwise stop the flow of cash into
the states loving arms.

The result... You go directly to jail. No trial for you, you're in
"contempt of court" for "failure to pay" your debt.

Oh and if you think that you can have your CS payments reduced or stopped
while your in jail for the crime (in most states non-payment of CS is a
felony!) of "failure to pay" - forget it. You'll still accrue an arrears
even while you're in the joint! So once you're released, you'll go right
back in again for... You guessed it - "failure to pay"!!

It's a no-win situation if ever there was one. Where's Captain Kirk when
you need him?

I'm not so sure this is correct. The Bradley Amendment simply prevents
lowering of arrearages, not preventing the lowering of the current C$
amount.
Judges are unlikely to lower the current C$ amount but it does happen
occasionally, if somewhat rarely.
The real problem in legislation like this is for the guy who finds the child
that is the cause of his paying C$ is not his biological child and can even
get the current C$ stopped altogether, if there's an arrearage, that cannot
be waived under any circumstances. For instance, if a man is suddenly
surprised by CSE for a child he didn't know existed with an arrearage
covering say, 10 years, and he contests it and proves it is not his child,
the arrearage, all 10 years, stands and he must pay the arrearage even
though he may have never met the mother.
Common sense or justice simply does not exist in legislation in the US,
regardless the state involved. As long as lobbyists, such as rabid
feminists, are capable of influencing the creation, or the enactment of,
stupid legislation, this will continue and the children and men, alas the
entire nation, will suffer.
Phil #3


"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"Anx99" wrote in message
...
I thought the Bradley amendment prohibited lowering child support
retroactively...once there is an arrears, it cannot be obilterated by
lowing
it. If this is true, the guy is triple f*ucked.

You are so on the mark!

Yes, the Bradley amendment did just that - once an amount of CS is
determined it cannot be lowered - for any reason, EVER.

So you'd better never get laid-off from your job (we all know that this
NEVER happens in real life, right?). Your car had NEVER better break
down,
get totaled, rust out or just blow up. And you'd better NEVER EVER get
sick, need to be hospitalized, have an operation, have an accident that
would prevent you from working, end up with reduced hours, get fired, the
company fold up it's tents and move overseas or close it's doors for good,
or any other reason that would slow or otherwise stop the flow of cash
into
the states loving arms.

The result... You go directly to jail. No trial for you, you're in
"contempt of court" for "failure to pay" your debt.

Oh and if you think that you can have your CS payments reduced or stopped
while your in jail for the crime (in most states non-payment of CS is a
felony!) of "failure to pay" - forget it. You'll still accrue an arrears
even while you're in the joint! So once you're released, you'll go right
back in again for... You guessed it - "failure to pay"!!

It's a no-win situation if ever there was one. Where's Captain Kirk when
you need him?

I'm not so sure this is correct. The Bradley Amendment simply prevents
lowering of arrearages, not preventing the lowering of the current C$
amount.
Judges are unlikely to lower the current C$ amount but it does happen
occasionally, if somewhat rarely.
The real problem in legislation like this is for the guy who finds the child
that is the cause of his paying C$ is not his biological child and can even
get the current C$ stopped altogether, if there's an arrearage, that cannot
be waived under any circumstances. For instance, if a man is suddenly
surprised by CSE for a child he didn't know existed with an arrearage
covering say, 10 years, and he contests it and proves it is not his child,
the arrearage, all 10 years, stands and he must pay the arrearage even
though he may have never met the mother.
Common sense or justice simply does not exist in legislation in the US,
regardless the state involved. As long as lobbyists, such as rabid
feminists, are capable of influencing the creation, or the enactment of,
stupid legislation, this will continue and the children and men, alas the
entire nation, will suffer.
Phil #3


"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"Anx99" wrote in message
...
I thought the Bradley amendment prohibited lowering child support
retroactively...once there is an arrears, it cannot be obilterated by
lowing
it. If this is true, the guy is triple f*ucked.

You are so on the mark!

Yes, the Bradley amendment did just that - once an amount of CS is
determined it cannot be lowered - for any reason, EVER.

So you'd better never get laid-off from your job (we all know that this
NEVER happens in real life, right?). Your car had NEVER better break
down,
get totaled, rust out or just blow up. And you'd better NEVER EVER get
sick, need to be hospitalized, have an operation, have an accident that
would prevent you from working, end up with reduced hours, get fired, the
company fold up it's tents and move overseas or close it's doors for good,
or any other reason that would slow or otherwise stop the flow of cash
into
the states loving arms.

The result... You go directly to jail. No trial for you, you're in
"contempt of court" for "failure to pay" your debt.

Oh and if you think that you can have your CS payments reduced or stopped
while your in jail for the crime (in most states non-payment of CS is a
felony!) of "failure to pay" - forget it. You'll still accrue an arrears
even while you're in the joint! So once you're released, you'll go right
back in again for... You guessed it - "failure to pay"!!

It's a no-win situation if ever there was one. Where's Captain Kirk when
you need him?

I'm not so sure this is correct. The Bradley Amendment simply prevents
lowering of arrearages, not preventing the lowering of the current C$
amount.
Judges are unlikely to lower the current C$ amount but it does happen
occasionally, if somewhat rarely.
The real problem in legislation like this is for the guy who finds the child
that is the cause of his paying C$ is not his biological child and can even
get the current C$ stopped altogether, if there's an arrearage, that cannot
be waived under any circumstances. For instance, if a man is suddenly
surprised by CSE for a child he didn't know existed with an arrearage
covering say, 10 years, and he contests it and proves it is not his child,
the arrearage, all 10 years, stands and he must pay the arrearage even
though he may have never met the mother.
Common sense or justice simply does not exist in legislation in the US,
regardless the state involved. As long as lobbyists, such as rabid
feminists, are capable of influencing the creation, or the enactment of,
stupid legislation, this will continue and the children and men, alas the
entire nation, will suffer.
Phil #3


"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"Anx99" wrote in message
...
I thought the Bradley amendment prohibited lowering child support
retroactively...once there is an arrears, it cannot be obilterated by
lowing
it. If this is true, the guy is triple f*ucked.

You are so on the mark!

Yes, the Bradley amendment did just that - once an amount of CS is
determined it cannot be lowered - for any reason, EVER.

So you'd better never get laid-off from your job (we all know that this
NEVER happens in real life, right?). Your car had NEVER better break
down,
get totaled, rust out or just blow up. And you'd better NEVER EVER get
sick, need to be hospitalized, have an operation, have an accident that
would prevent you from working, end up with reduced hours, get fired, the
company fold up it's tents and move overseas or close it's doors for good,
or any other reason that would slow or otherwise stop the flow of cash
into
the states loving arms.

The result... You go directly to jail. No trial for you, you're in
"contempt of court" for "failure to pay" your debt.

Oh and if you think that you can have your CS payments reduced or stopped
while your in jail for the crime (in most states non-payment of CS is a
felony!) of "failure to pay" - forget it. You'll still accrue an arrears
even while you're in the joint! So once you're released, you'll go right
back in again for... You guessed it - "failure to pay"!!

It's a no-win situation if ever there was one. Where's Captain Kirk when
you need him?

"Dusty" wrote in message
...


The result... You go directly to jail. No trial for you, you're in
"contempt of court" for "failure to pay" your debt.

Dusty, you've got the picture perfectly, however, I think legally, we're
tossed into jail for failing to obey an order of the Court.

Tossing someone in jail for failing to pay a debt is illegal according to
the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and most every
state constitution in the Country.

"Dusty" wrote in message
...


The result... You go directly to jail. No trial for you, you're in
"contempt of court" for "failure to pay" your debt.

Dusty, you've got the picture perfectly, however, I think legally, we're
tossed into jail for failing to obey an order of the Court.

Tossing someone in jail for failing to pay a debt is illegal according to
the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and most every
state constitution in the Country.

"Dusty" wrote in message
...


The result... You go directly to jail. No trial for you, you're in
"contempt of court" for "failure to pay" your debt.

Dusty, you've got the picture perfectly, however, I think legally, we're
tossed into jail for failing to obey an order of the Court.

Tossing someone in jail for failing to pay a debt is illegal according to
the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and most every
state constitution in the Country.