C$ paid, yet Judge orders prison time for not paying child support..??

"Random Stranger" wrote in message
om...
Gini wrote:
"Random Stranger" wrote
....................................
Perhaps he'll think twice or three times before witholding support
for

the next 8-10 years. In that regard the child may be way better off.
Without the jail time the guy may go another 10 years without paying
support, directly affecting the child.

==
Perhaps. But, you are now making assumptions to fit your argument. There
is
nothing
in the system requiring the custodial parent to spend the money on the
child.

Agreed. I was responding to the question about how the childs best
interests will be served. I was speculating; notice I said "perhaps".

There aren't enough facts for us to know. I'm just trying to point out
this isn't a clear-cut case of "innocent dad, evil judge, poor child".
It might be, or it might not be. It could be "truly dead-beat dad, wise
judge, poor child". Likely, the truth is somewhere between the extremes.

Hence, we
cannot conclude that not paying the support directly affects the child.
In
fact, if there
were checks in place to insure the money is reserved strictly for the
child's needs, there
would be greater compliance by the payor. As it is, only noncustodial
parents are mandated
by law to spend a percentage of their income "on their child(ren)."
(Actually, they are only mandated
to give it to the custodial parent.) There is no such mandate
of custodial parents or parents in intact families.
==

*sigh* Agreed. I never quite understood why CPs don't have to somehow
account for how the CS is spent. Even if numbers are bogus, I'd like
them to have to make the effort to justify it (XXX as part of rent, YYY
as part of groceries, ZZZ for dance lessons, ...).

It'll never happen.

Nor should it. The government people have NO business being in the business
of private family finances!

"Random Stranger" wrote in message
. com...
P. Fritz wrote:
Child support is foisted on the NCP, and enforced, literally by
gunpoint,

"literally by gunpoint"? I don't think so.

Don't pay their "child support", refuse to move out of your home when they
come to take it away, and refuse to go to jail when they tell you to go and
see what happens.


I'm sure its happened, but hardly to the extent you imply.

Indeed, the final act rarely occurs; but the blackmailed threat exists in
EVERY case. Your claim is like saying if a robber says "Give me your money
or I will take out my concealed weapon and point it at you" that he hasn't
robbed you at gunpoint.


I think we all agree the CS situation is horribly busted, but the
hyperbole does nothing but fan the flames.

Chris wrote:
"Random Stranger" wrote in message
. com...
Without the jail time the guy may go another 10 years without paying
support, directly affecting the child.


No it doesn't.


What does that mean? What is the "it" you refer to?

...
Debtor's prison is always justified. At least that's what the U.S.
Constitution says, right?


He isn't going to jail for owing a debt. He's going to jail for defying
a court order. Maybe that's splitting a hair since the order is what
caused the legal debt. I don't think so but perhaps you do.

Look, I think it sucks to be thrown in the jail for owing child support.
Bad idea for just about everybody concerned. In _this_specific_case_
however, we don't have enough facts to know if its warranted or not. The
facts we have seem to imply it's justified. The knee-jerk reactions
about the judge being absolutely corrupt, an idiot, etc are IMHO what
gives responsible fathers a bad name.

"NewMan" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 26 May 2006 02:48:11 GMT, Random Stranger
wrote:

Ray Gordon wrote:

The difference here is that society has an interest in people having
children, and unless you want to restrict childbearing only to the
wealthy,
then you'll have to deal with people of lesser means having them. Note
that
if the parents were married, the government would not be able to
intervene
even if he were financially irresponsible. A man who does not earn a
lot of
money is now risking prison time simply because he couldn't keep up his
child support payments.

You must have read a different article than I did. The article posted in
this newsgroup said nothing about his inability to pay, only about his
unwillingness. Actually, there wasn't any proof he was unwilling either,
just the word of the judge. I think, though, you're making assumptions
to fit your argument.

How is it in the best interest of the child to have his father
destroyed
like that?

Perhaps he'll think twice or three times before witholding support for
the next 8-10 years. In that regard the child may be way better off.
Without the jail time the guy may go another 10 years without paying
support, directly affecting the child.


So by putting him in jail for six months, chances are he will lose his
job. This will limit his ability to pay. So, the balance of
probabilites are that he will - again - be forced into arrears as a
result of the calus and heavy handed actions of the court and through
no fault of his own.

However, the second he is in arrears again, the door is wide open for
the system to declare him a repeat offender, and put him in jail
again! How nice! Daddy get to spend quality time with his cell mate
"bubba", while he has no means to pay, and while his child support
debt continues to accumulate! And I bet mommy wont be bringing sonny
to jail to visit daddy either! Would not want to have to explain to
sonny why daddy is in jail not, would we!

The court has just put this man into a situation where he may well
NEVER be able to pay, and will therefore be "at the mercy of the
court" for the rest of his life!

This is a case of abusolute power corrupting absolutely. The jusge
probably gets his kicks from toying with other mens lives with
impunity.

What goes around COMES around.


And as a repeat offender for "failure to pay child support", he can
get wages garnished, professional designations revoked, drives license
revoked, passport revoked....

Yes, while ex-cons that murdered and robbed and raped can get a job
and a drivers license and have no fear of having their wages
garnished, dead-beat dads cannot. dead-beat dads have beed so
villified that they are now lower than all too common criminals.

After the jail term he will (presumably) be more motivated to keep up
support payments, and the childs best interest will be served.


After the jail term, being an ex-con, he may well have trouble finding
a job at all!

I'm not saying jail was absolutely the best thing here. From the facts
presented in the article, however, it seemed quite justified.

The courts can "justify" anything they want. My experience with them
is that they make up their mind well in advance, and in spite of the
evidence and facts on record, and then twist the law in an effort to
justify their actions. This case, as far as presented, is no
different.

Go into kourt sometime and present a logical argument. See how fast they
threaten you with contempt of court. A tragedy indeed, but I can only laugh
at the government fools.


For all we
know, this judge has dealt with this guy a dozen times over the years
and simply ran out of ways to incent him to pay.

You know what? So what! The guy had reduced arrears to less than
$1000. This showed a measure of "good faith" on the part of the man,
despite past actions. As the saying goes, no good deed goes
unpunnished!

If I were in this man's shoes, I can tell you how motivated I would be
to make any further payments! I would be saying "let the crime fit the
punishemnt", go on welfare, and then do some work under that table to
make ends meat. I would not pay a single red cent more for a LONG
time.

Even on welfare he would at least be spared the heavy-handed
treatment!

He IS on welfare. That's what prison is; free room & board. If the kourt
people can't rip off one man, they will rip off the rest of us! They are not
satisfied until they cause a grave injustice to someone somewhere.

But as a working man, he if fodder for the legal cannon.

I know it's no longer in effect, but didn't there used to be some sort of
equal protection law under the Constitution?



Without more facts, we're all just pushing agendas around. I for one am
going to assume the judge knew way more about the situation than we do.

Perhaps he did. That still does not mean that he acted with fairness,
and with every persons best interests in mind. The decision as
rendered is immoral, it is narrowly focused on a small aspect of "the
law" and fails to take into account the "bigger picture".

This is typical of the crap that went on in my divorce. The only thing
I can say is THANK GOD my ex and I never had "children of the
marriage". I managed to avoid the whole child support bull**** as a
result. And since we were never connected at the hip by a child, the
severance is FINAL. And now that the court is out of my life, they
cannot come back in!

I am greatful for small mercies.

My prayers go out to this man. May God grant him the wisdom and
ability to rise up above the unconstitutional persicution that he now
faces.

The Liberty tree is LONG overdue for another watering!

dizum wrote:
"Random Stranger" wrote in message
. com...

dizum wrote:

Judge is a retard. He should be removed and disbarred. He is a perfect
example of stupid and incompetent lawyer, who was unable to survive with

his

own practice as a lawyer, so he bribed and kissed ass around to be a

public

employee - nominated judge.

How in the world can you make that determination from one small news
article?

****Because I have extensive knowledge about how stupid lawyers becomes
judges.

Impressive justification there. In other words, you are ignorant of the
case and decide to impose your own biases and sterotypes onto the situation.

No point in debating you further with that attitude.


How can he (and for that reason you people) suggest, that a civil case

for

owing money is offense to go to jail for?

Obviously the judge had more facts than we have. I agree one shouldn't
go to jail simply for owing a debt. Maybe there's a lot more to the
case. Maybe the dude threatened the judge that his ex will lie cold in
the grave before she gets a penny. Maybe the judge got burned and is
exacting his revenge on all dads everywhere. Both are possible. The
likely scenario is that he has more facts than we do and simply couldn't
see any other actions that would have an effect on the dude.


****Maybe, maybe, maybe.......You are contradicting yourself, if you read
your reply to my first paragraph.

No, I'm not contradicting myself. I'm saying we don't have enough facts
so there are lots of possible explanations. You seem to focus on a
single explanation: all judges are corrupt and evil in matters of child
support so obviously this judge was wrong. I'm focusing on the fact that
in this case, we don't have enough facts to say whether this was a
rational decision or not.

Some of the people in some of these groups rail against the "radfems",
but they are being equally radical, and are unwilling to see that there
can be two sides to an issue. That doesn't help to solve anything.

"Random Stranger" wrote
dizum wrote:
Judge is a retard. He should be removed and disbarred. He is a perfect
example of stupid and incompetent lawyer, who was unable to survive with
his
own practice as a lawyer, so he bribed and kissed ass around to be a
public
employee - nominated judge.

How in the world can you make that determination from one small news
article?
==
This is usenet. That's what we do. The facts are only a jumping point.
==

On Fri, 26 May 2006 16:37:14 GMT, Random Stranger
wrote:

SNIP

Some of the people in some of these groups rail against the "radfems",
but they are being equally radical, and are unwilling to see that there
can be two sides to an issue. That doesn't help to solve anything.

A bit OT, but...

Hmmm, not so sure. If being "radical" worked for femminists, when
would it not also work for "masculists"? (if that is the correct
word).

I hate it when things always come down to the lowest common
demoninator, but if the women did it, you cannot say that the men
cannot.

Don't get me wrong. There ARE always at least two sides to an issue.
The problem is that, as unions have proven, you NEVER concede that at
the on-set of negotiations!

Example, you make $10 per hour, and you want to make $13. You never go
into it asking for $13, or you will be lucky to see $11. You start by
asking for between $15 to $20. That way when you eventually get what
you want, it looks like you made serious concessions to the employer.

It is all smoke and mirrors really. It is based on human attitudes and
perceptions.

An employer could well be willing to pay $13 per hour, but he or she
will never admit it. If they agreed to it without a fight, then it
would make them look weak!

So human nature plays a huge part in it all - as was suggested by
myself and others in this thread.

The only thing that the "radical" approach did for the femminist
movement that was constructive was garner some movemovement and
support. The initial push raised awareness and opened dialog.
Unfortunately once this had served its purpose, it was not put laid to
rest. These radicals needed to justify their existence, so they
reformulated their agenda, and continued on. The devestation to
society that they perpetrated upon us is all around for everyone to
see. It is the legacy that they have left as a result of their hatred
and bitterness.

Since the progression of the radical femminists seems to be going on
virtually un-checked, I can certainly understand why some men are
starting to think, feel, and be just like the radical femminists of
days gone by. Perfectly understandable.

I wish them success on their quest to push back the radical
femminists, and bring about a move to true equality. What we have now
is worse than before - and it needs to be changed for the betterment
of all.

"Random Stranger" wrote in


What's with this "no fault of his own" crap? The guy ignored his
responsibility for almost ten years. That sure sounds like fault to me.

Maybe it was a one night stand and the guy didn't want the child in the
first place, so parenthood is being forced upon him by government
regulations. Can you spell communism?

"NewMan" wrote in

Indeed, and now "the state" will have to pay to house and feed the man
too! This really is a no-win situation of anyone. Of any decision that
could be made, this seems like the WORST of all possible outcomes.

It solves nothing proving that judge is a complete idiot.

DB wrote:

"NewMan" wrote in


Indeed, and now "the state" will have to pay to house and feed the man
too! This really is a no-win situation of anyone. Of any decision that
could be made, this seems like the WORST of all possible outcomes.


It solves nothing proving that judge is a complete idiot.

That's right on more than one level.

- Ron ^*^