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
  #21  
Old February 5th 06, 04:44 AM posted to alt.child-support
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
...

"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.

When a suuport order is at least two years old, the IV-D agency, at the
request of either parent or the state, must review the parties' incomes

and
situations to determine whether the support amount is still in

substantial
conformity with the guidelines.


At the request of either parent, or the state. It appears that neither

parent, nor the state, requested such a review.

He went to prison in 1992. At that point the state claims he was current on
CS. He requested his CS payments to be suspended in 1995. At the rate of
$100 per week he would have owed somewhere around $15,000 at that point.


Plus interest, which generally kicks in when there is more than a full month's arrears for more than a full month
(again, going by how they do it in my state)

The state says he owed $23,000 in CS in 1997 and now owes $38,000 in CS plus
interest. Looks to me like some pretty clear evidence the state did not act
on his request to have his CS payments suspended back in 1995.


And perhaps this is so - so tell me this - is he still not responsible for the 3 years that he didn't bother to notify
the state of his change in circumstances?





  #22  
Old February 5th 06, 04:45 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 ...

"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?






  #23  
Old February 5th 06, 04:46 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 ...

"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!!


Ooops--$30,000--not 50


Well, in it's simplest terms, he profited by not paying that money per month. I still don't see why his ex and children
should pay the price, they're not the ones who took 13 years of the man's life.








  #24  
Old February 5th 06, 05:01 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
...

"Dusty" 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?


Ummm, Moonie, there's one very important, and basic, fact that you've
overlooked.. The state knew EXACTLY where he was the whole time!!!


The criminal court system very well did - but family court, and child

support, are separate divisions.

Really? You call the criminal court system locking up an innocent man on a
trumped up charge of murder a good thing??. I'd hardly call that something
to crow about.

To say
that they (the state) didn't know where he was, let alone how to get a

hold
of him at a moments notice, to have a review of his C$ payments is to

claim
that the world is flat and that the moon is made of green cheddar

cheese!

I'm sorry, perhaps I missed something here - where did you see anyone

saying anything about the state knowing where he
was?


Excuse me, but what part about this guy being locked up in the state pen did
you not understand?

In your rush to point out that the state sends the CP a letter ("..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.."), you
missed yet another point, the entire other side of the argument - the state
also sends a letter out to the NCP.

In this case, the state has no excuse that it can claim that they couldn't
find the NCP - they had him locked up! On the charge of murder, no less!
And to add insult to injury.. the state had had him there for 13 years!!
How are we to believe that they -didn't- know where he was for all that
time???

Come on, Moonie, wake up and read it again. He was INCARCERATED in a

STATE
PRISON. The state cannot, ever, make the claim that they couldn't find

him.

I don't believe that claim was made anywhere.


You implied it when you claimed that the state sends the CP a letter (every
three years) to see if the CP wants to do a review of their C$. So, what
happened to the letter that they are supposed to send to the NCP? Federal
law requires that a review be done every three years (TITLE 42, CHAPTER 7,
SUBCHAPTER IV, Part D, § 666, a/10/i/III).

It's not like the state didn't know what his mailing address was for the
past 13 years... Hell, they built the place, staffed it, and even delivered
him to the place. They have no excuse.

And for the state to IGNORE informing him of his rights (in this case,

to
reduce or stop his C$ while he was in their custody) is of such

magnitude,
that there should be a Federal inquiry.


As far as I'm aware, the state is required to tell him of his criminal

rights, in criminal proceedings. Seems to me
that the 2 are separate, and unrelated.


Not so according to:

TITLE 42, CHAPTER 7, SUBCHAPTER IV, Part D, § 666, a/10/i

(III) use automated methods (including automated comparisons with wage or
State income tax data) to identify orders eligible for review, conduct the
review, identify orders eligible for adjustment, and apply the appropriate
adjustment to the orders eligible for adjustment under any threshold that
may be established by the State.

By this, the state has no room to claim that they couldn't reach The NCP -
he was in their jail, for 13 years.

Why is it so hard for you to accept that the guy not only screwed up in

criminal proceedings, but then further screwed
himself by not tending to his other obligations? Doesn't he have any

personal responsibility in how he runs his own
life?


Why is it so hard for you to accept that the state screwed up. It arrested
the wrong guy for murder, then when it's first mistake is discovered and he
is released. Then the state hands him a bill for C$ that the state knew
full well they couldn't collect on.

To witt: 42 USC, sec. 666 -

(g) Laws voiding fraudulent transfers
In order to satisfy section 654 (20)(A) of this title, each State must have
in effect—
(1) (A) the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act of 1981; (B) the Uniform
Fraudulent Transfer Act of 1984; or (C) another law, specifying indicia of
fraud which create a prima facie case that a debtor transferred income or
property to avoid payment to a child support creditor, which the Secretary
finds affords comparable rights to child support creditors; and
(2) procedures under which, in any case in which the State knows of a
transfer by a child support debtor with respect to which such a prima facie
case is established, the State must—
(A) seek to void such transfer; or
(B) obtain a settlement in the best interests of the child support creditor.

The state is in direct violation of Federal law.

Your whole argument about his not receiving a notice from the state is
utterly foolish.


Why would he have received a notice from the state?


For the same reason you claim the CP would have.

But don't let the FACTS get in the way.. Oh, no, we
wouldn't want that to happen now would we..?


The fact is that he didn't inform the courts about his change in

employment, address or health insurance, and he further
didn't inform the child support agencies about his change in

circumstances.

How could he, the state effectively kept him from it on many levels. First
by imprisoning him for a false crime, then by not informing him of his
rights to due process - criminally or otherwise.

Why don't you hold him responsible for his own inactions?


If Larry did anything wrong, I'd be the first to say so. But the facts of
the matter are quite clear. He did nothing wrong, it's the state's fault
for his situation, not his.


  #25  
Old February 5th 06, 05:08 AM posted to alt.child-support
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...


[snipped for brevity]

Why would he have received a notice from the state?


My husband receives a notice every year that he can have his cs payments
reviewed if there is a significant change in circumstance. He gets these
notices both from the state we live in and from the state the child lives
in. They don't notify cs obligors of this in your state?


You know, I can honestly say that I've NEVER gotten a letter like that. Not
once. Ever.

Yet, it's amazing how every month, like clockwork, the state can find the
the time to send me a bill..


  #26  
Old February 5th 06, 05:32 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
...

"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!!


Ooops--$30,000--not 50


Well, in it's simplest terms, he profited by not paying that money per
month. I still don't see why his ex and children should pay the price,
they're not the ones who took 13 years of the man's life.


How did he profit? He wasn't earning money that he got to keep rather than
pay to her. If his ex had wanted the $$ to be collected, don't you think
she could have filed a complaint? Instead of jumping on the "poor me" stump
when he is finally released from his wrongful imprisonment and proclaiming
the hardships *she* suffered in raising her own children while he rotted in
prison for a crime he didn't commit? She made it through those years--why
does she feel she is owed any repayment? She sounds like a greedy, selfish
shrew to me. Even if she no longer cares for him, she can at least have
some sympathy for what he went through. Unless, of course, she thinks he
might file an unlawful imprisonment lawsuit against the state, and she wants
to make sure she gets a sizeable piece of the pie.


  #27  
Old February 5th 06, 05:34 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
...

"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? 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?


  #28  
Old February 5th 06, 06:21 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:
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message


hlink.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.


When a suuport order is at least two years old, the IV-D agency, at the
request of either parent or the state, must review the parties' incomes and
situations to determine whether the support amount is still in substantial
conformity with the guidelines.



At the request of either parent, or the state. It appears that neither parent, nor the state, requested such a review.

If not a modification must be initiated,

regardless of whether it would result in a decrease or increase. See 42 USC
chapter 666 (a) (10) imposing a 3 year deadline for review. No change of
circumstance need be proven.

BTW - The state represents the state's interests and does not represent the
obligee.



I'm well aware of that.


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?


I am not suggesting anything. I am pointing out it is federal law to review
CS orders every three years or more frequently



When such a review has been reqquested.

and the state can has a

statutory obligation to initiate the process.



When a review has been requested.

And in this case, the state

failed to follow the federal law.



The review apparently wasn't requested.



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.


The last time I checked all states were subject to following the federal
laws or lose federal CS and welfare funding. Has your state rejected
federal CS and welfare reforms so they don;t have to follow the federal
laws?



As far as I'm aware, no. Child support is up for review 33 months after the most recent ruling, IF such a review is
requested. I've received the letters, and depending on a number of circumstances, have either requested such a review,
or tossed out the letter. When the letter is tossed out, no review is initiated, because no review has been requested.



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?


See above. Periodic reviews are in the federal CS law.



(i) In general.- Procedures under which every 3 years (or such shorter cycle as the State may determine), upon the
request of either parent, or, if there is an assignment under part A of this subchapter, upon the request of the State
agency under the State plan or of either parent, the State shall with respect to a support order being enforced under
this part, taking into account the best interests of the child involved-

Upon the request of either parent.

It certainly appears that in this case, there was no request by either parent, nor does it appear that there was an
assigment and then the state requested a review. They're not required to in all cases.





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.


I know you don't like me to use my case as an example, but every decree
modification I have ever seen has had wording to indicate the obligor and
obligee have the responsibility to report any changes in income, employment,
or insurance.



My decrees have never been limitied to me just reporting my

own changes.



Ahhhh so now, you want to shift the responsibility of reporting the father's changes onto the mother?

The language used in decrees is there to allow either party to

report changes for either party.



It doesn't, however, require them to. I'm fairly certain that my ex would never think to go running to the courts to
report any changes in my home life, in much the same way I haven't taken it upon myself to report changes in his life.

Funny though, most divorces? Have wording that essentially says that each person has to stay out of the other's life.

How else could a CP request a periodic

review if their own situation had not changed?



Because if the child support was set 3 years ago, there is a reasonable presumption that the payer has seen, at a
minimum, cost of living increases in income, in the same way that the CP has seen cost of living increases in the costs
of providing for that family. 3 years is apparently the time span that was felt to be reasonable without being overly
intrusive by demanding a full review every 6 months, for example.

The CP does not have to show a change in circumstances to request the (approximately) 3-year review of the child
support.


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?


Nice try, but that is what the news stories have implied - He didn't act, so
he is screwed.



Well? He didn't act, and he is screwed. Perhaps personal responsibility needs to come into play here?

My point is the state and the CP had equal responsibility to

act and they did not.



Actually, no, they didn't. The only one who didn't comply with the court orders was the NCP. The CP had no
responsibility to take care of the NCP's personal business, except in your world, I guess. What color is the sky there,
anyway?


Moon, if nothing else, you're illustrating very well just how draconian
CS law really is. Let's assume that there was no technical fault on the
part of State or CP... That the wrongly imprisoned man really was
responsible for making a plea to have his CS obligation reduced.

First, this is a man who was wrongly imprisoned for a murder he didn't
commit. How quickly would our legal system be falling over itself to
come to the aid of a woman caught in a similar situation? She was
distraught, she was mentally and emotionally shattered, etc. etc. -- so
she forgot to dot a few i's and cross a few t's during that time, what
kind of heartless ******* would nail her to the wall for that? Yet for
this man, who is a member of the real whipping-boy class of NCPs, there
is nothing but soulless adherence to "the law".

And what purpose the law in this case? Who does it help? The man's
children?

Do you seriously think this is the case?

He didn't "withhold" any of his income from them because he didn't have
any -- the incompetence of the court saw to that! If he'd filed his
papers the way he should have, I don't think anyone could have seriously
made a case for his continued obligation given his circumstances
(although I can't say I'd be terribly surprised if some "chivalrous"
judge decided he should still be held accountable for his
pre-incarceration rate of payment). His kids would have had to have
made do, just like they did. How on Earth does his failure to file a
paper translate to an actual obligation to give them money he never earned?

Step out of the legal box for a moment here, Moon. I'm sure you can
come up with many reasons why no one but this unfortunate man did
anything legally wrong. I'm not talking legality here. Tell me where
is the moral right that anyone has to use an obviously cockeyed law to
grind this man even further into the dirt than he already is?

It is sickening to see the profiteers hide behind the mantra of "it's
for the children". This is a case where there is nothing for the
children at all. The State took the children's father away from them
due to its own incompetence, then fabricated a legal tale about how he
has been "withholding" money from them that he never had the opportunity
to earn because IT TOOK IT AWAY FROM HIM. Why? BECAUSE THE STATE
STANDS TO PROFIT BY COLLECTING A PERCENTAGE OF WHAT IT FORCES THE MAN TO
PAY.

Go ahead and wave the law in our faces all you want. I'm disgusted
enough with the law to believe that it probably is on your side in this
matter. You're like the man who comes to "collect" the children in the
movie "Rabbit-Proof Fence", waving a piece of paper in the mother's face
and saying that that makes it all OK. It's horse ****, and everyone
knows it's horse ****. Go sell it somewhere else.

- Ron ^*^

  #29  
Old February 5th 06, 11:29 AM posted to alt.child-support
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support


"Dusty" wrote in message ...
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" 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...


snip


The criminal court system very well did - but family court, and child

support, are separate divisions.

Really? You call the criminal court system locking up an innocent man on a
trumped up charge of murder a good thing??. I'd hardly call that something
to crow about.


Well, If you look at what I've been posting, I didn't call the false imprisonment of an innocent man on a trumped up
charge of murder a good thing. Perhaps you could point out where you saw me make such a statement?


To say
that they (the state) didn't know where he was, let alone how to get a

hold
of him at a moments notice, to have a review of his C$ payments is to

claim
that the world is flat and that the moon is made of green cheddar

cheese!

I'm sorry, perhaps I missed something here - where did you see anyone

saying anything about the state knowing where he
was?


Excuse me, but what part about this guy being locked up in the state pen did
you not understand?


Perhaps you don't understand that his being locked up on murder charges, whether he committed the murder or not, is not
related to his child support case? Nor does being locked up on murder charges, whether he committed the murder or not,
automatically excuse his from his child support obligations? They're 2 separate and distinct things - and your
insistance in marrying them together is an awful lot like Bob insisting that it was someone the CP's responsibility to
advise the courts of changes in HIS circumstances.

Perhaps you have some difficulty with that whole taking personal responsibility idea?



In your rush to point out that the state sends the CP a letter ("..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.."), you
missed yet another point, the entire other side of the argument - the state
also sends a letter out to the NCP.


Apparently, not in all states, nor in all cases. You, yourself, don't get them. :-)
Now, if you'd like to argue that the state DOES send that letter to the NCP, which you have already claimed that they do
not in your other post, then perhaps the man in jail is doubly responsible for his own problems if he didn't respond to
it.



In this case, the state has no excuse that it can claim that they couldn't
find the NCP - they had him locked up! On the charge of murder, no less!
And to add insult to injury.. the state had had him there for 13 years!!
How are we to believe that they -didn't- know where he was for all that
time???

Come on, Moonie, wake up and read it again. He was INCARCERATED in a

STATE
PRISON. The state cannot, ever, make the claim that they couldn't find

him.

I don't believe that claim was made anywhere.


You implied it when you claimed that the state sends the CP a letter (every
three years) to see if the CP wants to do a review of their C$. So, what
happened to the letter that they are supposed to send to the NCP? Federal
law requires that a review be done every three years (TITLE 42, CHAPTER 7,
SUBCHAPTER IV, Part D, § 666, a/10/i/III).


Read it again. A review is required UPON REQUEST..

(10) Review and adjustment of support orders upon request.-
(A) 3-year cycle.-
(i) In general.- Procedures under which every 3 years (or such shorter cycle as the State may determine), upon the
request of either parent, or, if there is an assignment under part A of this subchapter, upon the request of the State
agency under the State plan or of either parent, the State shall with respect to a support order being enforced under
this part, taking into account the best interests of the child involved-
(I) review and, if appropriate, adjust the order in accordance with the guidelines established pursuant to section 667
(a) of this title if the amount of the child support award under the order differs from the amount that would be awarded
in accordance with the guidelines;
(II) apply a cost-of-living adjustment to the order in accordance with a formula developed by the State; or
(III) use automated methods (including automated comparisons with wage or State income tax data) to identify orders
eligible for review, conduct the review, identify orders eligible for adjustment, and apply the appropriate adjustment
to the orders eligible for adjustment under any threshold that may be established by the State.



It's not like the state didn't know what his mailing address was for the
past 13 years... Hell, they built the place, staffed it, and even delivered
him to the place. They have no excuse.


You have an elementary school on one side of town, and the high school on the other side of town. They're both schools,
both run by the state.

You expect the high school to know what the 5th grader in the elementary school is up to?

Jeez, you really seem to have difficulty with the idea that the criminal courts and the family courts don't necessarily
try to update each other's case files.

Whether it should be that way or it shouldn't be that way, that's the way it is. They don't update each other's case
files. To expect so, to demand to, to insist that it be so, is pretty unrealistic.



And for the state to IGNORE informing him of his rights (in this case,

to
reduce or stop his C$ while he was in their custody) is of such

magnitude,
that there should be a Federal inquiry.


As far as I'm aware, the state is required to tell him of his criminal

rights, in criminal proceedings. Seems to me
that the 2 are separate, and unrelated.


Not so according to:

TITLE 42, CHAPTER 7, SUBCHAPTER IV, Part D, § 666, a/10/i

(III) use automated methods (including automated comparisons with wage or
State income tax data) to identify orders eligible for review, conduct the
review, identify orders eligible for adjustment, and apply the appropriate
adjustment to the orders eligible for adjustment under any threshold that
may be established by the State.


UPON REQUEST. You left out that part.


By this, the state has no room to claim that they couldn't reach The NCP -
he was in their jail, for 13 years.


I don't believe that any such claim was made.



Why is it so hard for you to accept that the guy not only screwed up in

criminal proceedings, but then further screwed
himself by not tending to his other obligations? Doesn't he have any

personal responsibility in how he runs his own
life?


Why is it so hard for you to accept that the state screwed up.


I'm not so sure they did. Accordoing to the posts you and Bob have made on this one:

1. The CP should have gone to the courts and files a change of address/employment/insurance, even though it wasn't HER
change of address/employment/insurance

2. The man didn't advise family court that he was in jail, and should now, somehow, be off the hook for the
repercussions of his failure to act in his own best interests, as well as his attorney who failed him in his criminal
proceedings should apparently be off the hook for not only failing to keep him out of jail for a crime he didn't commit,
but also off the hook for failing to help him tend to his personal business (child support notification) prior to his
incarceration.

3. The state criminal court system and each and every county family court system should add updating each others case
files to the list of work they already have to do.

4. Each and every child support agency should go through every single one of their case files JUST IN CASE there might
be a case that maybe should be reviewed EVEN THOUGH NO ONE REQUESTED SUCH A REVIEW.

Does that about cover it?

Of course, I see loads of blame on the CP, the court system, the lawyers, the CS agencies......... funny, the only one
you don't seem to be blaming for his own inaction, even when it was not in his own best personal interests........... is
the NCP.

snip rest of this stuff where you'd like to blame someone else for the guy's own inaction


  #30  
Old February 5th 06, 11:45 AM 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:RXfFf.158422$oG.121366@dukeread02...


Moon Shyne wrote:
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message

thlink.net...

"Werebat" wrote in message


snip

Actually, no, they didn't. The only one who didn't comply with the court orders was the NCP. The CP had no
responsibility to take care of the NCP's personal business, except in your world, I guess. What color is the sky
there, anyway?


Moon, if nothing else, you're illustrating very well just how draconian CS law really is. Let's assume that there was
no technical fault on the part of State or CP... That the wrongly imprisoned man really was responsible for making a
plea to have his CS obligation reduced.

First, this is a man who was wrongly imprisoned for a murder he didn't commit.


Which has nothing to do with his ex, his children, his child support, or the child support agencies.

How quickly would our legal system be falling over itself to
come to the aid of a woman caught in a similar situation? She was distraught, she was mentally and emotionally
shattered, etc. etc. -- so she forgot to dot a few i's and cross a few t's during that time, what kind of heartless
******* would nail her to the wall for that? Yet for this man, who is a member of the real whipping-boy class of
NCPs, there is nothing but soulless adherence to "the law".


Because there is no real life example, it would be difficult to presuppose how the situation would play out, were the CD
obligor a woman. I'm not going to try to second guess.


And what purpose the law in this case? Who does it help? The man's children?

Do you seriously think this is the case?


Ah - so if a law doesn't "help" in a particular case, then it should be ignores/disallowed? I'm not sure what your
point is here.


He didn't "withhold" any of his income from them because he didn't have any -- the incompetence of the court saw to
that!


Actually, it was more likely the incompetance of his attorney -

If he'd filed his
papers the way he should have, I don't think anyone could have seriously made a case for his continued obligation
given his circumstances (although I can't say I'd be terribly surprised if some "chivalrous" judge decided he should
still be held accountable for his pre-incarceration rate of payment).


Probably so. He would have tended to his personal responsibilities, and wouldn't be in his current predicament. My
point exactly.

His kids would have had to have
made do, just like they did. How on Earth does his failure to file a paper translate to an actual obligation to give
them money he never earned?


Because he didn't tend to his personal responsibilities and his his obligations deferred/tabled/eliminated.

Your argument is sort of the same one my ex tried when he was thousands in arrears - that the children and I had
managed, therefore he should be allowed to just ignore the arrears. It's a false argument. If I don't pay my car loan,
the car dealership will still stay in business. They will not fold. They will manage. Therefore, I shouldn't have to
pay my car loan? Cause trust me, if that's how you think it works, I could really use the extra cash in my budget by
not paying it.


Step out of the legal box for a moment here, Moon. I'm sure you can come up with many reasons why no one but this
unfortunate man did anything legally wrong. I'm not talking legality here. Tell me where is the moral right that
anyone has to use an obviously cockeyed law to grind this man even further into the dirt than he already is?


I have not defended, nor will I, any moral rights, wrongs or indifferents. I see some posters who are intent on pinning
blame on a whole host of people, none of whom caused the problem for this man, and ignoring the ones who truly DID
create the problem for this man.

My issue with all of this blaming and finger pointing is that I see NO thought, by Dusty and Bob, for example, of the
concept of personal responsibility, and people tending to their own personal responsibility. That's my biggest issue
with the posts on this topic.

Personally, I think the man jailed for 13 years should be suing the crap out of the state, for a load of money AND a
job, and then have the money applied to the arrears in child support, and then maybe everyone could get on with their
lives.

But again, that would mean that he would have to actually take action, in his own best interests, which is what he
didn't do the first time around.


It is sickening to see the profiteers hide behind the mantra of "it's for the children". This is a case where there
is nothing for the children at all. The State took the children's father away from them due to its own incompetence


Due to his own lawyer's incompetance, more likely - let's put the blame where it really is.

, then fabricated a legal tale about how he
has been "withholding" money from them that he never had the opportunity to earn because IT TOOK IT AWAY FROM HIM.


Well, that's not quite the tale - he's in arrears, and there's no question that he is.

Why? BECAUSE THE STATE
STANDS TO PROFIT BY COLLECTING A PERCENTAGE OF WHAT IT FORCES THE MAN TO PAY.

Go ahead and wave the law in our faces all you want. I'm disgusted enough with the law to believe that it probably is
on your side in this matter. You're like the man who comes to "collect" the children in the movie "Rabbit-Proof
Fence", waving a piece of paper in the mother's face and saying that that makes it all OK. It's horse ****, and
everyone knows it's horse ****. Go sell it somewhere else.


I'm not defending the law, per se. Again, there is this tendency to twist words, and fabricate things that weren't
actually said.

The man was sent to jail. That's bad.

He wasn't guilty. That's worse.

Who was to blame? Probably, in large measure, his own attorney.

While he was in jail, he didn't pay child support. Understandable.

When he got out of jail, he had an arrears. Also understandable.

For some period of time, he did not tend to his own business and advise CS that he was not in a position to pay. Very
unfortunate - but no one's fault but his own.

At some point, he DID advise the CS system that he wasn't in a position to pay - more fortunate, though it's unfortunate
that he didn't take care of it years sooner.

During that time, the CP had to raise children brought into the world by 2 parents, and do it on the income and
opportunities of 1 parent. Also unfortunate, and certainly not a problem of her own making. She didn't cause the
problem, she did what she could to work with the problem at hand - why would anyone now claim that she has to solve the
problem by waving her magic wand over the results of the NCP's own failure to act in his own best interests?

Again, I see it all coming back down to that evil old personal responsibility thing.

You want that sold elsewhere? Don't you teach YOUR kids to take personal responsibility? I sure do.


- Ron ^*^



 




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 02:41 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.