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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
New York: Child Support Orders Against Incarcerated Parents Appropriate
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/fam...develo_23.html
Case Law Development: Child Support Orders Against Incarcerated Parents Appropriate The Family Court of New York determined that a parent who is incarcerated at the time child support proceedings are commenced and who is likely to remain in prison until the child has reached the age of majority may nonetheless be assessed child support. The court found that setting child support at zero would reward the parent for his wrongdoing and deprive the child of possible support should the parent come into some money or become eligible for employment. Also, the court noted that, although New York statutes provide that the accrual of child support for parents with incomes below the poverty line should be capped at $500, that cap need not apply when the parent’s poverty is due to their incarceration for crime. Finally, the court rejected parent’s argument that the child support order should be set aside “because of the unrealized expectations and emotional distress it will cause the Mother and child.”(!) Janet E. v. Antonio B., 2005 NY Slip Op 25434; 2005 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2265 (October 18, 2005) bgf Seems to me that just setting the support at the guideline amount would be simpler and more fair. If the guy/gal makes nothing in prison, 25% of zero would be zero. If he makes $10 a week, garnish $2.50 out of his/her check. They are basically ruling here that prisoners do not benefit from the limiting aspect of the guidelines (no equal treatment under the law for prisoners?), and even suggest that the person is in prison intentionally to avoid paying CS. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
New York: Child Support Orders Against Incarcerated Parents Appropriate
JayR wrote:
: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/fam...develo_23.html : Seems to me that just setting the support at the guideline amount would : be simpler and more fair. If the guy/gal makes nothing in prison, 25% : of zero would be zero. If he makes $10 a week, garnish $2.50 out of : his/her check. They are basically ruling here that prisoners do not : benefit from the limiting aspect of the guidelines (no equal treatment : under the law for prisoners?), and even suggest that the person is in : prison intentionally to avoid paying CS. I agree. It's very stupid to assume someone wants to be in prison to avoid paying CS. Additionally, through force, their wage is lowered to that of prison wages. Yes, assess their prison wages as they'd assess their wages if they were working a job. What will they do next? Wait until they get out of jail and then jail them for nonpayment of child support ? It'd be an endless loop. Leave it to the government to screw up like this. b. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
New York: Child Support Orders Against Incarcerated Parents Appropriate
wrote in message
roups.com... JayR wrote: : http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/fam...develo_23.html [snip] I agree. It's very stupid to assume someone wants to be in prison to avoid paying CS. Additionally, through force, their wage is lowered to that of prison wages. Yes, assess their prison wages as they'd assess their wages if they were working a job. What will they do next? Wait until they get out of jail and then jail them for nonpayment of child support ? It'd be an endless loop. Why not? Then you solve the problem of running out of deadbeats to hound and hunt - and use as bait when new laws are about to be enacted, or like in the case of VAWA, you need to show an example to a crowd of Congressmen to gain their support in getting BILLIONS in TAXPAYER MONEY to spend on bull **** programs that do nothing save line feminazi packets. Remember the guy who, upon returning home after being a POW in the first Gulf War (he was a civilian contractor or something and had been captured by the Iraqis when they invaded Kuwait - or something like that) was arrested by the local cops for failing to pay C$ while he was a POW?!? And how about the janitor who was arrested for a murder he didn't commit? DNA testing later proved he wasn't the killer (after serving some 10-15 years behind bars) and then the state turns around and hands him a bill for something like $50,000 for unpaid C$ - when the state had arrested him for a crime he didn't commit in the first place?!? We already have examples of how the courts don't give a damn. Now they're just making it "legal" to continue what they started. I'd love to see something like this go to the Supremes... with luck, they'd end lower court (read: "Family Court") bull **** rulings once and for all. Then again, maybe not. Well, I can dream.. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |
Parent-Child Negotiations | Nathan A. Barclay | Spanking | 623 | January 28th 05 04:24 AM |
Child Support Policy and the Welfare of Women and Children | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | May 13th 04 12:46 AM |
The Determination of Child Custody in the USA | Fighting for kids | Child Support | 21 | November 17th 03 01:35 AM |
| Ex Giants player sentenced-DYFS wrkr no harm noticed | Kane | Spanking | 11 | September 16th 03 11:59 AM |