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
  #1  
Old February 4th 06, 01:55 PM posted to alt.child-support
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support

(Newaygo County, February 2, 2006, 7:32 p.m.) A man set free after
spending 13 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit is facing more
trouble.

Court documents show 53-year-old Larry Souter owes about $38,000 in
back child support after interest and penalties.

The amount grew because he failed to have his payments suspended when
he went to prison in 1992.

Souter was convicted for the 1979 murder of 19-year-old Kristi Ringler
near White Cloud. But years later, a woman came forward saying Ringler
was actually hit by a motor home.

http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.a...49531&nav=0Rce

  #2  
Old February 4th 06, 03:24 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...
(Newaygo County, February 2, 2006, 7:32 p.m.) A man set free after
spending 13 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit is facing more
trouble.

Court documents show 53-year-old Larry Souter owes about $38,000 in
back child support after interest and penalties.

The amount grew because he failed to have his payments suspended when
he went to prison in 1992.

Souter was convicted for the 1979 murder of 19-year-old Kristi Ringler
near White Cloud. But years later, a woman came forward saying Ringler
was actually hit by a motor home.


And the beat goes on.............


http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.a...49531&nav=0Rce



  #3  
Old February 4th 06, 05:24 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...
(Newaygo County, February 2, 2006, 7:32 p.m.) A man set free after
spending 13 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit is facing more
trouble.

Court documents show 53-year-old Larry Souter owes about $38,000 in
back child support after interest and penalties.

The amount grew because he failed to have his payments suspended when
he went to prison in 1992.

Souter was convicted for the 1979 murder of 19-year-old Kristi Ringler
near White Cloud. But years later, a woman came forward saying Ringler
was actually hit by a motor home.

http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.a...49531&nav=0Rce



I love this line: "..he failed to have his payments suspended when he went
to prison in 1992.."

Here's the thing though, unless the accused is aware that _he_ has to
petition the court to suspend the C$ _on his own_, then the state will take
no action to stop the amount from going through the roof. But will, upon
his release, come a-knockin' for the cash as surely as the sun will rise
tomorrow.

And if he doesn't have it - they'll take him right back to jail.

Pretty neat system of "justice" we have, ain't it?

Unless he writes a book or cuts a movie deal, the chances are pretty good
that he'll never be able to pay it off. Look at it like this.. he's 53, has
no place to live (at the moment), has no job or job prospects and even
though he was exonerated for a crime he didn't commit, the stigma of it will
haunt him for the rest of his life (and most likely kill any decent job
prospects, too).

He's doomed. No matter what he does, no matter where he goes, he'll never
get his life back. And the state is the one responsible for doing this to
him. Are they gonna set him up with a nice, comfy government job? No. Are
they gonna dog him for the money they say he owes and continue to make his
life a living hell? As sure as the Pope's catholic, you can bet your ass th
ey will.


  #5  
Old February 4th 06, 11:02 PM 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:

wrote in message
oups.com...

(Newaygo County, February 2, 2006, 7:32 p.m.) A man set free after
spending 13 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit is facing more
trouble.

Court documents show 53-year-old Larry Souter owes about $38,000 in
back child support after interest and penalties.

The amount grew because he failed to have his payments suspended when
he went to prison in 1992.

Souter was convicted for the 1979 murder of 19-year-old Kristi Ringler
near White Cloud. But years later, a woman came forward saying Ringler
was actually hit by a motor home.

http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.a...49531&nav=0Rce




I love this line: "..he failed to have his payments suspended when he went
to prison in 1992.."

Here's the thing though, unless the accused is aware that _he_ has to
petition the court to suspend the C$ _on his own_, then the state will take
no action to stop the amount from going through the roof. But will, upon
his release, come a-knockin' for the cash as surely as the sun will rise
tomorrow.

And if he doesn't have it - they'll take him right back to jail.

Pretty neat system of "justice" we have, ain't it?

Unless he writes a book or cuts a movie deal, the chances are pretty good
that he'll never be able to pay it off. Look at it like this.. he's 53, has
no place to live (at the moment), has no job or job prospects and even
though he was exonerated for a crime he didn't commit, the stigma of it will
haunt him for the rest of his life (and most likely kill any decent job
prospects, too).

He's doomed. No matter what he does, no matter where he goes, he'll never
get his life back. And the state is the one responsible for doing this to
him. Are they gonna set him up with a nice, comfy government job? No. Are
they gonna dog him for the money they say he owes and continue to make his
life a living hell? As sure as the Pope's catholic, you can bet your ass th
ey will.


And Wikipedia on the Bradley Amendment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Amendment

  #6  
Old February 4th 06, 11:52 PM posted to alt.child-support
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support


"Werebat" wrote in message
news:[email protected]

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?

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? The public officials never admit their failures to follow
the statutory requirements in the law. 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. The reported
facts indicate the state failed to do it's job over an 18 year period.

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?


  #7  
Old February 5th 06, 12:18 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 ink.net...

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:[email protected]

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?





  #8  
Old February 5th 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
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message

ink.net...

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:TjaFf.15839[email protected]

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!!! 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!

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.

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.

Your whole argument about his not receiving a notice from the state is
utterly foolish. But don't let the FACTS get in the way.. Oh, no, we
wouldn't want that to happen now would we..?


  #9  
Old February 5th 06, 01:42 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:[email protected]

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.

And the beat goes on.............


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?


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.



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.

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?


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?

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.

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







  #10  
Old February 5th 06, 01:50 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
...
wrote in message
oups.com...
(Newaygo County, February 2, 2006, 7:32 p.m.) A man set free after
spending 13 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit is facing more
trouble.

Court documents show 53-year-old Larry Souter owes about $38,000 in
back child support after interest and penalties.

The amount grew because he failed to have his payments suspended when
he went to prison in 1992.

Souter was convicted for the 1979 murder of 19-year-old Kristi Ringler
near White Cloud. But years later, a woman came forward saying Ringler
was actually hit by a motor home.

http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.a...49531&nav=0Rce



I love this line: "..he failed to have his payments suspended when he

went
to prison in 1992.."

Here's the thing though, unless the accused is aware that _he_ has to
petition the court to suspend the C$ _on his own_, then the state will

take
no action to stop the amount from going through the roof. But will, upon
his release, come a-knockin' for the cash as surely as the sun will rise
tomorrow.

And if he doesn't have it - they'll take him right back to jail.

Pretty neat system of "justice" we have, ain't it?


Yup. And then when he goes back to jail, we ALL get to pay for his free room
& board. Well not all; lazy "child support" moms are exempt being that they
are welfare recipients themselves.


Unless he writes a book or cuts a movie deal, the chances are pretty good
that he'll never be able to pay it off. Look at it like this.. he's 53,

has
no place to live (at the moment), has no job or job prospects and even
though he was exonerated for a crime he didn't commit, the stigma of it

will
haunt him for the rest of his life (and most likely kill any decent job
prospects, too).

He's doomed. No matter what he does, no matter where he goes, he'll never
get his life back. And the state is the one responsible for doing this to
him. Are they gonna set him up with a nice, comfy government job? No.

Are
they gonna dog him for the money they say he owes and continue to make his
life a living hell? As sure as the Pope's catholic, you can bet your ass

th
ey will.




 




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 03:47 AM
| | Kids should work... Kane Spanking 12 December 10th 03 02:30 AM
Kids should work. ChrisScaife Spanking 16 December 7th 03 04:27 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.