MS - Do 'child support' payments stop if child is in prison?

Let's all play the Spot the Spin game!!

You folks at home can play along too, just read the following article and
see if you can - Spot the Spin!
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pb...608290315/1166
August 29, 2006

Do 'child support' payments stop if child is in prison?

By Jack Elliott Jr.
The Associated Press


In recent weeks, the Mississippi Supreme Court has cited a "compelling
argument" by a father wanting to either end or reduce child support payments
for a minor serving a life sentence for murder.

Lawmakers might take notice of what was a hint from the Supreme Court that
state law is vague on the issues raised by Danny Edmonds.

He said his son, Tyler Edmonds, no longer needs the $213 a month because the
Mississippi Department of Corrections is providing food, shelter and
clothing for the teen. Danny Edmonds has been making the payments to his
ex-wife, Sharon Edmonds.

Tyler Edmonds, now 16, was convicted of murder in 2004 in the shooting death
of his half-sister's husband. He was 14 at the time of the slaying. He is
serving a life sentence. His attorneys are appealing the conviction.

A Clay County chancellor ruled against Danny Edmonds, as did the Supreme
Court.

The Supreme Court also threw out $5,000 awarded Sharon Edmonds by the
chancellor to pay part of Tyler's defense bill. In throwing out the criminal
defense money, the Supreme Court said Danny Edmonds should not be
"financially liable for the costs related to Tyler's criminal appeal which
she (Sharon) incurred unilaterally."

The Supreme Court said state law doesn't address the question of whether
child support can be terminated to a minor who's given a lengthy prison
sentence. The court said the law allows for modifications in child support
when circumstances have changed for the mother, father or child.

The Supreme Court kicked the case back to Clay County for consideration of
Danny Edmonds' request to reduce his child support payments.

Justice James E. Graves Jr. wrote in the Supreme Court decision that neither
parent was directly providing for Tyler's daily support.

He said the mother's only support of Tyler, as it pertains to routine
expenses normally contemplated by child support, was about $140 per month
that she deposited into his canteen account, which provided Tyler with items
that are not provided by the Department of Corrections.

However, Graves said Tyler could not be considered emancipated under state
law.

"He is not 21, has not married, and is not full time employed. He did not
voluntarily move from his home, although it can be argued that he has
independent living arrangements," Graves wrote.

Lawmakers must consider whether to amend the law to address the
incarceration question, or wait on the Supreme Court to revisit the issue in
another case.

From posting faces on billboards to issuing most wanted lists to suspending
hunting privileges to going after professional licenses to paternity
testing, some lawmakers believe they may have pushed the legal limits of
what they can do to get folks to support their children.

The courts have stepped in from time to time.

For example, the Supreme Court said in 2003 that one unpleasant meeting
between a child and his estranged father was no grounds to suspend child
support payments. It overturned a ruling by a lower court that the father
had proved that he had no relationship with his son and suspended future
child support.

The justices said to allow the father to terminate his obligations to his
child after one unpleasant visit was "rewarding the father for not taking an
active role in his child's life."

Still, many try to get out of paying child support.

Danny Edmonds just tried another track and failed. For now.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Jack Elliott Jr. is a writer for The Associated Press in Jackson.

Dusty wrote:
Let's all play the Spot the Spin game!!

You folks at home can play along too, just read the following article and
see if you can - Spot the Spin!


I can't really see the spin here, other than the last line, but even
that can be argued as relatively neutural.

And this line could actually be seen as favorable.
"From posting faces on billboards to issuing most wanted lists to
suspending
hunting privileges to going after professional licenses to paternity
testing, some lawmakers believe they may have pushed the legal limits of
what they can do to get folks to support their children."

The article could be seen as slightly favorable or neutural towards
NCPs, although I would peg it as neutural, analyzing a decision and the
trend.

In Virginia, the non-custodial parent pays if the kid's in jail, foster
care, etc. Only once a child emancipates or is adopted, or when
parental rights are terminated are one's support obligations
terminated.

"John Meyer" wrote in message
. ..
Dusty wrote:
Let's all play the Spot the Spin game!!

You folks at home can play along too, just read the following article and
see if you can - Spot the Spin!


I can't really see the spin here, other than the last line, but even that
can be argued as relatively neutural.

And this line could actually be seen as favorable.
"From posting faces on billboards to issuing most wanted lists to
suspending
hunting privileges to going after professional licenses to paternity
testing, some lawmakers believe they may have pushed the legal limits of
what they can do to get folks to support their children."

The article could be seen as slightly favorable or neutural towards NCPs,
although I would peg it as neutural, analyzing a decision and the trend.

Just who -is- supporting this "child"? Certainly NOT the mother. If the
State is now acting as custodian, why is it that there is still money being
passed from one parent to the other??

I'll tell you why - it's NOT "child support", it's MOMMY support, aka:
Backdoor Alimony!

Pure and simple, C$ has nothing, nada, zip, zilch, zero to do with children.
It has EVERYTHING to do with keeping the poor, wee, little, defenseless
victim (aka: females) from having to actually work for a bloody living!

wrote:
In Virginia, the non-custodial parent pays if the kid's in jail, foster
care, etc. Only once a child emancipates or is adopted, or when
parental rights are terminated are one's support obligations
terminated.

Who do they pay -- the state, or the "C"P?

If they pay the "C"P, how is this justified considering that the "C"P
isn't really supporting the child?

- Ron ^*^

If the kid's in foster care or jail, they pay DCSE, and I assume,
perhaps incorrectly, that DCSE forwards that money onto to either the
Department or Corrections, or jail, or the foster care arm of the
Department of Social Services.

Werebat wrote:
wrote:
In Virginia, the non-custodial parent pays if the kid's in jail, foster
care, etc. Only once a child emancipates or is adopted, or when
parental rights are terminated are one's support obligations
terminated.

Who do they pay -- the state, or the "C"P?

If they pay the "C"P, how is this justified considering that the "C"P
isn't really supporting the child?

- Ron ^*^

wrote in message
oups.com...
If the kid's in foster care or jail, they pay DCSE, and I assume,
perhaps incorrectly, that DCSE forwards that money onto to either the
Department or Corrections, or jail, or the foster care arm of the
Department of Social Services.

Mississippi does not have an emancipation clause in their CS law. That is
why the MS Supreme Court referred the issue back to the lower court and
suggested the legislature enact an appropriate law for the future.

You are correct that in most states CS is paid to the state Youth Authority
when a minor is held in state custody. But in this case the "minor" is
incarcerated for life as an "adult" offender yet technically the boy is not
an adult under CS law. That is the legal issue the Supremes pointed out for
the legislature to act on to resolve future cases like this one.

wrote in message
oups.com...
In Virginia, the non-custodial parent pays if the kid's in jail, foster
care, etc. Only once a child emancipates or is adopted, or when
parental rights are terminated are one's support obligations
terminated.

Why would support stop if the kid is in foster care?

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"John Meyer" wrote in
message . ..
Dusty wrote:
Let's all play the Spot the Spin game!!

You folks at home can play along too, just read the following article
and see if you can - Spot the Spin!


I can't really see the spin here, other than the last line, but even that
can be argued as relatively neutural.

And this line could actually be seen as favorable.
"From posting faces on billboards to issuing most wanted lists to
suspending
hunting privileges to going after professional licenses to paternity
testing, some lawmakers believe they may have pushed the legal limits of
what they can do to get folks to support their children."

The article could be seen as slightly favorable or neutural towards NCPs,
although I would peg it as neutural, analyzing a decision and the trend.

Just who -is- supporting this "child"? Certainly NOT the mother. If the
State is now acting as custodian, why is it that there is still money
being passed from one parent to the other??

Who says it goes to the mother? I know a man who used to post here. He had
custody of his son. His son went to jail, and he was required to pay
California $30/day for each day his son was in jail. Add it up Dusty, that
isn't pocket change (at least to me it isn't). Anyways - he was having a
difficult time collecting CS from his ex, who should be held responsible for
50% of that cost, don't you think?

"Tracy" wrote in message
. ..

Why would support stop if the kid is in foster care?

One would presume termination of parental rights along with becoming a ward
of the state. If the state wants to continue extracting support payments,
the money should be taken equally from both of the parents, or in the name
of complete fairness - from whoever the custodial parent was since their
shortcomings led to removal from parental care and control.