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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
C$ paid, yet Judge orders prison time for not paying child support..??
"Random Stranger" wrote in message om... Gini wrote: "Random Stranger" wrote .................................... Perhaps he'll think twice or three times before witholding support for the next 8-10 years. In that regard the child may be way better off. Without the jail time the guy may go another 10 years without paying support, directly affecting the child. == Perhaps. But, you are now making assumptions to fit your argument. There is nothing in the system requiring the custodial parent to spend the money on the child. Agreed. I was responding to the question about how the childs best interests will be served. I was speculating; notice I said "perhaps". There aren't enough facts for us to know. I'm just trying to point out this isn't a clear-cut case of "innocent dad, evil judge, poor child". It might be, or it might not be. It could be "truly dead-beat dad, wise judge, poor child". Likely, the truth is somewhere between the extremes. Hence, we cannot conclude that not paying the support directly affects the child. In fact, if there were checks in place to insure the money is reserved strictly for the child's needs, there would be greater compliance by the payor. As it is, only noncustodial parents are mandated by law to spend a percentage of their income "on their child(ren)." (Actually, they are only mandated to give it to the custodial parent.) There is no such mandate of custodial parents or parents in intact families. == *sigh* Agreed. I never quite understood why CPs don't have to somehow account for how the CS is spent. Even if numbers are bogus, I'd like them to have to make the effort to justify it (XXX as part of rent, YYY as part of groceries, ZZZ for dance lessons, ...). It'll never happen. Nor should it. The government people have NO business being in the business of private family finances! |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
C$ paid, yet Judge orders prison time for not paying child support..??
"Random Stranger" wrote in message . com... P. Fritz wrote: Child support is foisted on the NCP, and enforced, literally by gunpoint, "literally by gunpoint"? I don't think so. Don't pay their "child support", refuse to move out of your home when they come to take it away, and refuse to go to jail when they tell you to go and see what happens. I'm sure its happened, but hardly to the extent you imply. Indeed, the final act rarely occurs; but the blackmailed threat exists in EVERY case. Your claim is like saying if a robber says "Give me your money or I will take out my concealed weapon and point it at you" that he hasn't robbed you at gunpoint. I think we all agree the CS situation is horribly busted, but the hyperbole does nothing but fan the flames. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
C$ paid, yet Judge orders prison time for not paying child support..??
Chris wrote:
"Random Stranger" wrote in message . com... Without the jail time the guy may go another 10 years without paying support, directly affecting the child. No it doesn't. What does that mean? What is the "it" you refer to? ... Debtor's prison is always justified. At least that's what the U.S. Constitution says, right? He isn't going to jail for owing a debt. He's going to jail for defying a court order. Maybe that's splitting a hair since the order is what caused the legal debt. I don't think so but perhaps you do. Look, I think it sucks to be thrown in the jail for owing child support. Bad idea for just about everybody concerned. In _this_specific_case_ however, we don't have enough facts to know if its warranted or not. The facts we have seem to imply it's justified. The knee-jerk reactions about the judge being absolutely corrupt, an idiot, etc are IMHO what gives responsible fathers a bad name. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
C$ paid, yet Judge orders prison time for not paying child support..??
"NewMan" wrote in message news On Fri, 26 May 2006 02:48:11 GMT, Random Stranger wrote: Ray Gordon wrote: The difference here is that society has an interest in people having children, and unless you want to restrict childbearing only to the wealthy, then you'll have to deal with people of lesser means having them. Note that if the parents were married, the government would not be able to intervene even if he were financially irresponsible. A man who does not earn a lot of money is now risking prison time simply because he couldn't keep up his child support payments. You must have read a different article than I did. The article posted in this newsgroup said nothing about his inability to pay, only about his unwillingness. Actually, there wasn't any proof he was unwilling either, just the word of the judge. I think, though, you're making assumptions to fit your argument. How is it in the best interest of the child to have his father destroyed like that? Perhaps he'll think twice or three times before witholding support for the next 8-10 years. In that regard the child may be way better off. Without the jail time the guy may go another 10 years without paying support, directly affecting the child. So by putting him in jail for six months, chances are he will lose his job. This will limit his ability to pay. So, the balance of probabilites are that he will - again - be forced into arrears as a result of the calus and heavy handed actions of the court and through no fault of his own. However, the second he is in arrears again, the door is wide open for the system to declare him a repeat offender, and put him in jail again! How nice! Daddy get to spend quality time with his cell mate "bubba", while he has no means to pay, and while his child support debt continues to accumulate! And I bet mommy wont be bringing sonny to jail to visit daddy either! Would not want to have to explain to sonny why daddy is in jail not, would we! The court has just put this man into a situation where he may well NEVER be able to pay, and will therefore be "at the mercy of the court" for the rest of his life! This is a case of abusolute power corrupting absolutely. The jusge probably gets his kicks from toying with other mens lives with impunity. What goes around COMES around. And as a repeat offender for "failure to pay child support", he can get wages garnished, professional designations revoked, drives license revoked, passport revoked.... Yes, while ex-cons that murdered and robbed and raped can get a job and a drivers license and have no fear of having their wages garnished, dead-beat dads cannot. dead-beat dads have beed so villified that they are now lower than all too common criminals. After the jail term he will (presumably) be more motivated to keep up support payments, and the childs best interest will be served. After the jail term, being an ex-con, he may well have trouble finding a job at all! I'm not saying jail was absolutely the best thing here. From the facts presented in the article, however, it seemed quite justified. The courts can "justify" anything they want. My experience with them is that they make up their mind well in advance, and in spite of the evidence and facts on record, and then twist the law in an effort to justify their actions. This case, as far as presented, is no different. Go into kourt sometime and present a logical argument. See how fast they threaten you with contempt of court. A tragedy indeed, but I can only laugh at the government fools. For all we know, this judge has dealt with this guy a dozen times over the years and simply ran out of ways to incent him to pay. You know what? So what! The guy had reduced arrears to less than $1000. This showed a measure of "good faith" on the part of the man, despite past actions. As the saying goes, no good deed goes unpunnished! If I were in this man's shoes, I can tell you how motivated I would be to make any further payments! I would be saying "let the crime fit the punishemnt", go on welfare, and then do some work under that table to make ends meat. I would not pay a single red cent more for a LONG time. Even on welfare he would at least be spared the heavy-handed treatment! He IS on welfare. That's what prison is; free room & board. If the kourt people can't rip off one man, they will rip off the rest of us! They are not satisfied until they cause a grave injustice to someone somewhere. But as a working man, he if fodder for the legal cannon. I know it's no longer in effect, but didn't there used to be some sort of equal protection law under the Constitution? Without more facts, we're all just pushing agendas around. I for one am going to assume the judge knew way more about the situation than we do. Perhaps he did. That still does not mean that he acted with fairness, and with every persons best interests in mind. The decision as rendered is immoral, it is narrowly focused on a small aspect of "the law" and fails to take into account the "bigger picture". This is typical of the crap that went on in my divorce. The only thing I can say is THANK GOD my ex and I never had "children of the marriage". I managed to avoid the whole child support bull**** as a result. And since we were never connected at the hip by a child, the severance is FINAL. And now that the court is out of my life, they cannot come back in! I am greatful for small mercies. My prayers go out to this man. May God grant him the wisdom and ability to rise up above the unconstitutional persicution that he now faces. The Liberty tree is LONG overdue for another watering! |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
C$ paid, yet Judge orders prison time for not paying child support..??
dizum wrote:
"Random Stranger" wrote in message . com... dizum wrote: Judge is a retard. He should be removed and disbarred. He is a perfect example of stupid and incompetent lawyer, who was unable to survive with his own practice as a lawyer, so he bribed and kissed ass around to be a public employee - nominated judge. How in the world can you make that determination from one small news article? ****Because I have extensive knowledge about how stupid lawyers becomes judges. Impressive justification there. In other words, you are ignorant of the case and decide to impose your own biases and sterotypes onto the situation. No point in debating you further with that attitude. How can he (and for that reason you people) suggest, that a civil case for owing money is offense to go to jail for? Obviously the judge had more facts than we have. I agree one shouldn't go to jail simply for owing a debt. Maybe there's a lot more to the case. Maybe the dude threatened the judge that his ex will lie cold in the grave before she gets a penny. Maybe the judge got burned and is exacting his revenge on all dads everywhere. Both are possible. The likely scenario is that he has more facts than we do and simply couldn't see any other actions that would have an effect on the dude. ****Maybe, maybe, maybe.......You are contradicting yourself, if you read your reply to my first paragraph. No, I'm not contradicting myself. I'm saying we don't have enough facts so there are lots of possible explanations. You seem to focus on a single explanation: all judges are corrupt and evil in matters of child support so obviously this judge was wrong. I'm focusing on the fact that in this case, we don't have enough facts to say whether this was a rational decision or not. Some of the people in some of these groups rail against the "radfems", but they are being equally radical, and are unwilling to see that there can be two sides to an issue. That doesn't help to solve anything. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
C$ paid, yet Judge orders prison time for not paying child support..??
"Random Stranger" wrote dizum wrote: Judge is a retard. He should be removed and disbarred. He is a perfect example of stupid and incompetent lawyer, who was unable to survive with his own practice as a lawyer, so he bribed and kissed ass around to be a public employee - nominated judge. How in the world can you make that determination from one small news article? == This is usenet. That's what we do. The facts are only a jumping point. == |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
C$ paid, yet Judge orders prison time for not paying child support..??
On Fri, 26 May 2006 16:37:14 GMT, Random Stranger
wrote: SNIP Some of the people in some of these groups rail against the "radfems", but they are being equally radical, and are unwilling to see that there can be two sides to an issue. That doesn't help to solve anything. A bit OT, but... Hmmm, not so sure. If being "radical" worked for femminists, when would it not also work for "masculists"? (if that is the correct word). I hate it when things always come down to the lowest common demoninator, but if the women did it, you cannot say that the men cannot. Don't get me wrong. There ARE always at least two sides to an issue. The problem is that, as unions have proven, you NEVER concede that at the on-set of negotiations! Example, you make $10 per hour, and you want to make $13. You never go into it asking for $13, or you will be lucky to see $11. You start by asking for between $15 to $20. That way when you eventually get what you want, it looks like you made serious concessions to the employer. It is all smoke and mirrors really. It is based on human attitudes and perceptions. An employer could well be willing to pay $13 per hour, but he or she will never admit it. If they agreed to it without a fight, then it would make them look weak! So human nature plays a huge part in it all - as was suggested by myself and others in this thread. The only thing that the "radical" approach did for the femminist movement that was constructive was garner some movemovement and support. The initial push raised awareness and opened dialog. Unfortunately once this had served its purpose, it was not put laid to rest. These radicals needed to justify their existence, so they reformulated their agenda, and continued on. The devestation to society that they perpetrated upon us is all around for everyone to see. It is the legacy that they have left as a result of their hatred and bitterness. Since the progression of the radical femminists seems to be going on virtually un-checked, I can certainly understand why some men are starting to think, feel, and be just like the radical femminists of days gone by. Perfectly understandable. I wish them success on their quest to push back the radical femminists, and bring about a move to true equality. What we have now is worse than before - and it needs to be changed for the betterment of all. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
C$ paid, yet Judge orders prison time for not paying child support..??
"Random Stranger" wrote in What's with this "no fault of his own" crap? The guy ignored his responsibility for almost ten years. That sure sounds like fault to me. Maybe it was a one night stand and the guy didn't want the child in the first place, so parenthood is being forced upon him by government regulations. Can you spell communism? |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
C$ paid, yet Judge orders prison time for not paying child support..??
"NewMan" wrote in Indeed, and now "the state" will have to pay to house and feed the man too! This really is a no-win situation of anyone. Of any decision that could be made, this seems like the WORST of all possible outcomes. It solves nothing proving that judge is a complete idiot. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
C$ paid, yet Judge orders prison time for not paying child support..??
DB wrote: "NewMan" wrote in Indeed, and now "the state" will have to pay to house and feed the man too! This really is a no-win situation of anyone. Of any decision that could be made, this seems like the WORST of all possible outcomes. It solves nothing proving that judge is a complete idiot. That's right on more than one level. - Ron ^*^ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
misc.kids FAQ on Breastfeeding Past the First Year | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | January 18th 06 05:47 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Breastfeeding Past the First Year | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | December 19th 05 05:35 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Breastfeeding Past the First Year | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | June 30th 05 05:28 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Breastfeeding Past the First Year | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | May 30th 05 05:28 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Breastfeeding Past the First Year | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | March 30th 05 06:33 AM |