A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #111  
Old February 7th 06, 08:01 PM posted to alt.child-support
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support

"P. Fritz" paulfritz ATvoyager DOTnet wrote in message
...


[snip]

Dusty.....are you finally tiring of ****ing in the wind?


I'm just bored with all Moon's b.s. rhetoric is all. She hasn't sounded
this bizarre in.. hours.


  #112  
Old February 8th 06, 08:15 PM posted to alt.child-support
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support

Virginia doesn't send out such letters either...I wrote, called and
physically spoke with various employees at DCSE telling them I wanted
my child support reviewed because when the judge computed my
"obligation' she failed to even inquire as to my ex-wife's
income...never mind that the earned income credit she was able to claim
was far in excess of my annual support "obligation."

Virginia's DCSE is largely made up of women who have the intelligence
of former welfare marms who appear to be incapable of having logical
thought processes.

  #113  
Old February 8th 06, 09:52 PM posted to alt.child-support
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support


wrote in message
oups.com...
Virginia doesn't send out such letters either...I wrote, called and
physically spoke with various employees at DCSE telling them I wanted
my child support reviewed because when the judge computed my
"obligation' she failed to even inquire as to my ex-wife's
income...never mind that the earned income credit she was able to claim
was far in excess of my annual support "obligation."

Virginia's DCSE is largely made up of women who have the intelligence
of former welfare marms who appear to be incapable of having logical
thought processes.

===
Who are you talking to? What did they say?
===



  #114  
Old February 9th 06, 04:08 AM posted to alt.child-support
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support


"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"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


No it's not; it's a choice.

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.






  #115  
Old February 9th 06, 12:01 PM posted to alt.child-support
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support


"Chris" wrote in message news:6JyGf.24798$sA3.24392@fed1read02...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message

...


snip



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


No it's not; it's a choice.


It's not only a disease, but it has been found to have genetic components.
http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/NewsEvents/...s/physguid.htm
http://www.aafp.org/afp/990115ap/361.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract




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.








  #116  
Old February 9th 06, 01:12 PM posted to alt.child-support
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support



Moon Shyne wrote:

"Chris" wrote in message news:6JyGf.24798$sA3.24392@fed1read02...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message


...


snip


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


No it's not; it's a choice.



It's not only a disease, but it has been found to have genetic components.
http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/NewsEvents/...s/physguid.htm
http://www.aafp.org/afp/990115ap/361.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract


You can certainly make a case that the proclivity to overindulge is not
something that a person chooses.

Just like you can make a case that the proclivity to engage in sex with
children is not something that an adult chooses.

I'd agree that we should give alcoholic women and men who ruin their own
lives and the lives of others around them exactly the same sort of
compassion that we give to child molesters who do the same thing.

- Ron ^*^

  #117  
Old February 9th 06, 01:14 PM posted to alt.child-support
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support

"Werebat" wrote in message news:ilGGf.79261$QW2.58943@dukeread08...


Moon Shyne wrote:

"Chris" wrote in message news:6JyGf.24798$sA3.24392@fed1read02...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message

...


snip


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

No it's not; it's a choice.



It's not only a disease, but it has been found to have genetic components.
http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/NewsEvents/...s/physguid.htm
http://www.aafp.org/afp/990115ap/361.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract


You can certainly make a case that the proclivity to overindulge is not something that a person chooses.

Just like you can make a case that the proclivity to engage in sex with children is not something that an adult
chooses.

I'd agree that we should give alcoholic women and men who ruin their own lives and the lives of others around them
exactly the same sort of compassion that we give to child molesters who do the same thing.


You would.


- Ron ^*^



  #118  
Old February 9th 06, 03:42 PM posted to alt.child-support
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support

I notice that you did not respond to my answer to your question. I can only
assume that it did not come through to your server, so I am reposting it for
you:

Moon:
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?



TM:
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?


Moon:
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.


TM:
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
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:6JyGf.24798$sA3.24392@fed1read02...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message

...


snip



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


No it's not; it's a choice.


It's not only a disease, but it has been found to have genetic components.
http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/NewsEvents/...s/physguid.htm
http://www.aafp.org/afp/990115ap/361.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract




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.










  #119  
Old February 10th 06, 12:28 AM posted to alt.child-support
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support


"teachrmama" wrote in message ...
I notice that you did not respond to my answer to your question. I can only assume that it did not come through to
your server, so I am reposting it for you:

Moon:
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?



TM:
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?


Moon:
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.


TM:
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.



It's a disease - a really ****ty one. I didn't say it was the same as being jailed, except that both can land a person
in a position where they are unable to support their families.


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.


I'm not sure I necessarily agree with you on that last one.





"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ...

"Chris" wrote in message news:6JyGf.24798$sA3.24392@fed1read02...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...


snip



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

No it's not; it's a choice.


It's not only a disease, but it has been found to have genetic components.
http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/NewsEvents/...s/physguid.htm
http://www.aafp.org/afp/990115ap/361.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract




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.












  #120  
Old February 10th 06, 01:26 AM posted to alt.child-support
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message

...
I notice that you did not respond to my answer to your question. I can

only assume that it did not come through to
your server, so I am reposting it for you:

Moon:
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'd like to know something - just exactly when did being falsely accused,
arrested, and subsequently jailed for murder became a trivial thing?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TM:
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?

Moon:
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 :-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The 'complex chronic psychological and nutritional disorder associated with
excessive and usually compulsive drinking' is what alcoholism is. It is not
a disease. Cystic Fibrosis is a disease. Sickle Cell Anemia is a disease.
Leprosy is a disease. Alcoholism is -not- a disease, it is a mental
disorder, nothing more. Yes, there does appears to be some sort of genetic
connection related to alcoholism, but that hardly makes it a disease.

Being jailed for a false crime is not something that anyone, even you Moon,
would find to be within their ability to control. Unlike alcoholism, which
is a choice, jail time for a false murder charge is not.

The truth can hurt Moon - even though you may not like it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

TM:
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.



It's a disease - a really ****ty one. I didn't say it was the same as

being jailed, except that both can land a person
in a position where they are unable to support their families.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

According to Websters...

Alcoholism
Pronunciation: 'al-k&-"ho-"li-z&m, -k&-h&-
Function: noun
1 : continued excessive or compulsive use of alcoholic drinks
2 : poisoning by alcohol; especially : a complex chronic psychological and
nutritional disorder associated with excessive and usually compulsive
drinking

Even WebMD lists it as a neurological disorder.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.


I'm not sure I necessarily agree with you on that last one.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, I suppose that when a person gets mugged, raped or murdered, you'd
somehow come up with the cockamamie idea that it was the victim's fault for
what the criminal did to them.

And I'm quite sure that you'd call stubbing one's toe a disease as well...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 04:47 AM
| | Kids should work... Kane Spanking 12 December 10th 03 03:30 AM
Kids should work. ChrisScaife Spanking 16 December 7th 03 05:27 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.