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
  #11  
Old February 5th 06, 01:53 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:[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.


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. 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.



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 and the state can has a
statutory obligation to initiate the process. And in this case, the state
failed to follow the federal law.


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?


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.


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. The language used in decrees is there to allow either party to
report changes for either party. How else could a CP request a periodic
review if their own situation had not changed?


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. My point is the state and the CP had equal responsibility to
act and they did not.


  #12  
Old February 5th 06, 02:01 AM posted to alt.child-support
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support


"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.

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?





  #13  
Old February 5th 06, 02:18 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...

"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.


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?





  #14  
Old February 5th 06, 02:42 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
...

"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?


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!!


  #15  
Old February 5th 06, 02:46 AM posted to alt.child-support
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support


"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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

..

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?


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?


  #16  
Old February 5th 06, 02:51 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...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...


snip

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.


My husband's case was reviewed at 3 years, even though neither he nor the
child's mother requested it. It was found that there was no change in
circumstance, so nothing was changed.


  #17  
Old February 5th 06, 02:55 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:[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?


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




  #18  
Old February 5th 06, 03:11 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...

"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.


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.
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.


  #19  
Old February 5th 06, 03:42 AM posted to alt.child-support
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support


"teachrmama" wrote in message ...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ...

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

.

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?


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?


I don't know. I know that every 33 months, I get a notice that I can CHOOSE to have them review, and it doesn't require
showing a change in circumstances. I have no idea what my ex does or doesn't receive.





  #20  
Old February 5th 06, 03:43 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...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...


snip

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.


My husband's case was reviewed at 3 years, even though neither he nor the child's mother requested it. It was found
that there was no change in circumstance, so nothing was changed.


And it's highly likely that it's different from one state to the next. Here, if I ignore the notification, no review is
done (at least as far as I know).




 




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 09:59 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.