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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ink.net... "Werebat" wrote in message news:TjaFf.158396$oG.37265@dukeread02... 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. |
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 |
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 |