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
|
|||
|
|||
Searching for Federal case law regarding child(ren) welfare
I'm looking for HELP! I'm in need of Federal cases and rulings regarding a
child's or children's welfare and the "child(ren)'s best interest. Specific cases involving; Child(ren) being used by custodial parent for financial gain to the parent; Child(ren)'s emotional welfare jeapordized by actions of custodial parent; State child support agency acting as "governing entity" without regard to state and or federal laws, including "undue process" and or "negligence" and or "child endangerment". Current evidence has clearly shown that the mother of the child (defendant in this case) purposely concieved a child by the father of the child (plaintiff in this case)by using fraudulant means. The plaintiff and defendant had a "dating" relationship for a short period of months. After the conseption, the plaintiff had confronted the defendant and asked if the child could be the plaintiff's. The defendant stated clearly that the child was not of the plaintiff. The plaintiff requested that the defendant submit to a paternity test after the child was born, the defendant refused and disappeared shortly after this request. The plaintiff had lived at the same residence, known to the defendant, for almost 11 years, and could be contacted openly during this time. The defendant had hidden from "public" view for the next approximately 8 years, even going to the length of "home schooling" the child, as to avoid public record of the whereabouts of the defendant and the child. The defendant then takes a child support claim to the Oklahoma Child Support Collection Agency, claiming child support from the plaintiff. The plaintiff receives a notice from the Oklahoma Child Support Agency advising the plaintiff of this action taken. The plaintiff submits to confront this action in the agencies "administrative court" (a true kangaroo court). Facts were established, such as the defendant admitted stating to the plaintiff that thie child was not his at the time of conception, that the plaintiff knew all the contact information for the plaintiff since the time of conception, such as home address and telehone number, etc., and that the defendant has refused a "paternity test" after the child was born. And that the defendant had purposely moved residence often to avoid anyone being able to locate/contact her. The defendant also produced such things as old marketing material of a project that the plaintiff had been involved in some 10 years prior to the3 filing of this administrative action, in which the defendant produced this material in the administrative court and asked "what about the money from this", attempting to establish fincial status of the plaintiff in order to extract more money from the plaintiff for the defendant. Note, this was marterials even the plaintiff no longer poccessed and had not for many years. It was clear that the defendant, by gaining, retaining this information to produce it approximately 10 year later was a clear indication this was a "planned" extortion attempt to use the child in this case for the defendant's financial gain. (Basically like Monica Lewinski sealing her spermed stained dress for some two years from Bill Clinton to produce it in the future as evidence). Also, if the defendant knew or even thought the plaintiff was the father of the child, why did the defendant wait some 8-9 years before making any claim of child support against the plaintiff, when the plaintiff could have been contacted at anytime with a known and verified perminent resident address and telephone number. It is personally believed that this was purposely done by the defendant, because what judge would grant custody to a parent to whom the child not not even know nor have any established relationship. It was reasonably clearly planned this way by the defendant. The "administrative court" disregarded the specific circumstances in this case and the defendant was granted 5 years of arrearage child support allowed by state law (the law is broad and has no regard for circumstance)and current child support from the plaintiff to the defendant. The plaintiff, finding no resolve, or even caring for the child's well being in this case, had this matter moved to the state District Court. Due to "time" technicalities, the District Court upheld the "arrearage" decision of the administrative court solely on the grounds that the District Court filing "time" filing statutes had expired. However, the District Court had established that a court appointed child therepist was to oversee visitation between the plaintiff and the child and to make reports to the court of the child therepists findings in this matter. The court appointed child therapist determined and stating in written report that the plaintiff was a "fit and proper parent" and that regular visitation between the plaintiff and the child would greatly benefit the child emotionally. However, the court appointed child therapist also made specific mention that the defendant was clearly attempting to "sabatage" any relationship being formed between the plaintiff and the child, and that if the Court continued to allow such action, the defendant would make every attempt to "sabatage" any type of relationship trying to be formed between the plaintiff and th child in this case and that the child would suffer emotional harm from the defendant's actions. Again, this was the findings and WRITTEN findings by the COURT APPOINTED child therapist! The state agency has taken many actions to, in what my opinion is "extortion", by using only "administrative authority" (kangaroo court procedings) to pressure the plaintiff into simply submitting to thier decision, not made by the District Court (which over-rides any and all "adminstrative" decisions. Such as the the administrative actions suspended my driver's license WITHOUT ever even informing me of the action! I did not find out until 7 months later when I was pulled over for a traffic violation. Plaintiff was NEVER allowed "due process", never informed of any such actions claimed against him nor allowed to defend any such claims made against him. The Plaintiff in this case resides in California and has now for over 2 years. Yet the Oklahoma administrative actions are still being brought against the plaintiff, but from within the state of Oklahoma and never informing the plaintiff of any actions taken against him from a state that, in my opinion, no longer has any jurisdiction in this matter. Am I wrong? Since the plaintiff has established residence in a new state and has proven residency of over 2 years, would an agency from Oklahoma have jurisdiction on NEW actions over the plaintiff that lives in California. Or would Oklahoma have to proceed in an "interstate" fashion, by contacting my state of established residency? Or in this case, plaintiff would like to take this matter into Federal Court to establish a proper ruling for such complicated issues that are involved in such a case. The plaintiff has no issue with paying "child support". The main issue will be considering the facts and the well being and welfare, mainly emotionally, for the child(ren) caught up in cases such as these. Anyone who intensionally uses a child for the purpose of financial gain is WRONG and should be PUNISHABLE BY LAW! If there is not currently a law regarding such an issue, it's time to establish one and I am willing to go through the fight to get it established. Not only in my case, but for every child in this country. Any suggestions, case law referal, etc, will be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance! SW |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
misc.kids FAQ on Firearms Safety & Children | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | November 18th 05 05:36 AM |
Child Support Guidelines are UNFAIR! Lets join together to fight them! | S Myers | Child Support | 115 | September 12th 05 12:37 AM |
Children re-abused state custody NY, CPS expose | Fern5827 | Spanking | 2 | September 22nd 04 01:47 AM |
Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Foster Parents | 16 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |