Posted on 04/04/2010 1:48:44 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad
Having dedicated so much mental energy in examining SB 236, I have just now sat down and looked at SB 475. I am all for tougher child support laws, but gee wiz. Under the current law, you are deemed to have intentionally not paid your child support if:
1.Your were more than $5000 in arrears. 2.You had not paid in a year.
Under the new law…..it is just a crime to not pay regardless of how late you are or how much behind. Well, I’m confused….does this mean I will have been deemed to have committed a crime if I am say, one day late? Have I committed a crime if I am one dollar short ?…YES
I can discern the wisdom of the present law in the presumption that if you go late for more than one year, or if you are $5000 in arrears, then is it more likely than not that the intentional element to prove a crime exists.
I am a little tickled at the stupidity of making it a crime to be one day late or a dollar short. My child support is due on the first of each month and I send the payment in on the first…(because I get paid on the first). I suppose I will be a felon within two months since I am hyper-technically late each month by two or three days. And for all of you who do not know…you can’t pay DSS in advance…they will send you a refund. These are facts.
How many custodial parents pay their rent or mortgage exactly on the first of each month?
This proposed change to the law is a bit ridiculous. I will support tougher child support laws but not absurd ones.
I almost secretly hope the law passes just to witness the carnage at the District Attorney’s Office of custodial parents trying to have someone thrown in jail only to find out they misplaced the check. The non-custodial parent in the meantime would have been arrested and labeled a “dead-beat”. Sounds to me like this law is just simply designed to give leverage to the custodial parent and enable them to threaten the non-custodial parent with jail time virtually every month.
Do these Senators even bother to read Senator Quinn’s proposed legislation?
Why not just have a minimum payment provision to avoid the application of the criminal statute of say 50% of the child support obligation? In other words, keep the present law in place but add that “if such obligation has fallen below 50% of the total support obligation for one year or is greater than $5000“. …..I dreamed that up in 30 seconds…can’t our Senators spend a little mental energy and come up with something better than Senator Quinn's nonsense.
Senator Quinn is seeking to move this bill through the legislature at warp speed before the Senators can hear from the opposing side.
The Louisiana Legislature just convened on March 30, 2010.
They suspended the rules and dispensed with the first two readings of this law on that day.
They assigned it incorrectly to the Judiciary A (civil law) committee and not the Judiciary C (criminal law) committee.
The committee posted their meeting notice and this bill was not on the list. It was still not on the list as of 4:40 p.m., the last time I checked their agenda for bills of interest.
The committee chairperson (Senator Quinn) added 4 of her bills to the agenda at 5:07 p.m.
The committee convened at 10:00 a.m. the following day, March 30, 2010. The committee meeting lasted about 22 minutes. They committee members commented on what a 'quiet, quick and peaceful meeting it was'.
The Louisiana Sunshine laws, from which the legislature is exempt, requires 24 hour notice of all meetings and their agenda.
The Louisiana Senate Rules (13.73) requires that they post their notice and agenda by no later than 1pm of the day before the meeting.
There does appear to be a clause that allows the committee to add agenda items if their is no objection from the other committee members. However, even then, they are obligated to give the public an option to comment before voting. They did not make such an offer.
There were only two witnesses for any of the bills heard that day - both for the same bill. That was the judge and the court administrator for the bill that was written to change the rules for that court. So they were there by special invite.
The department of social services via Robbie Endris did make a brief appearance. They asked that their two bills (added to the agenda by Quinn) be deferred. They respected the rules requiring notice.
This left 2 Quinn bills: SB236 and SB475.
SB236 removes 15 years of fathers progress in the area of custody.
It changes only a single word, the word SHOULD to MAY.
This changes the intent of the test. The test goes from a positive test (getting shared custody unless reason is found not to grant it) to a negative test (not getting shared custody unless reason is found to grant it).
This is not acceptable.
There were no witnesses to support this change in the law.
There were no problems cited to explain why this change was needed.
The committee chairperson claimed to have called the LSLI Child Custody committee chairperson the week before.
She further claimed that this committee chairperson has phone polled her committee - A DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE OPEN MEETING LAW - and received a positive response from 6 members; an objection from 1 member; and a non response from 3 members.
LSLI committees are required to hold public hearings with agendas and notice. They are required to vote publicly on the proposed change. They are required to issue a report to the full body.
The full LSLI body is required to also hold a public meeting on the issues. They are also required to vote on the issues. They are also required to submit the report to the legislature - this report states the reason that they are making the change.
The second proposed law, SB475, makes a mockery of the child support felony laws. See the article above.
The Senate suspended the rules and read the bills for the third time on the following day, March 31, 2010.
So these bills are up for a full Senate vote on Tuesday, April 6, 2010.
Please help spread the word.
We need your help to get the word out.
At the hearing, Senator Quinn stated that "Anybody can pay a $5 fine (on a $100 arrears)".
However, her law does not require a 5% fine.
Her law requires AT LEAST a 5% fine (plus reasonable attorney fees all paid to the 'victim')
So by voting for this law, the Senate Judiciary A subcommittee removed the $500 fine cap and instituted in its place a minimum fine.
So Judge can fine a defendant who owes $100
instead of a from $0 to $500
he can fine him anywhere from $5 to $1,000,000,000.*
* There is no cap, add as many additional zeros as you like.
Any provision for someone who loses their job or the like?
And weee felony charge getting guns rights taken away (if that wasn’t already done by the vindictive ex-wife).
This sure does encourage men to think twice about getting married or even having intimate relations with a woman.
As well it should. Screwing around and bringing little kids into the world is serious business. Not any partner will do.
and if you do... don’t then sponsor them to run for the Senate.
The sponsor is recently divorced (and it was a bitter divorce)
Indeed so.
I think criminalizing fathers is stupid. Once the father is arrested what happens to his job or ability to obtain a job.
No I am not a father and I would spend all my money on my kids if were anyway.
$5000? Are you sure?
My payments were 1500 mnth. I’d hit that amount in no time.
There is no debtors prison in America....except for Family Court.
After a couple of years, my new wife looked at me one day and said
I want a divorce.
I said, Why?
She says, Why not?
And she was absolutely right! She got everything , house kids, the new car, everything. And she lost nothing.
All I got was the privilege of paying her 1500 for the next 15 years for one child even though she has a job paying her 50000.
From her point of view nothing changed except now she has a pension and she can legally bang other guys.
Remember, I pay taxes on the amount and it is tax free to her. She really hit the jackpot and she had it planned all along.
The reason the amount is so high is called the “success penalty”.
Before I met her, emphasize BEFORE I met her, I struggled for years to get several academic degrees and career successes. Even though we were married for a couple of years, she got credit for my 20 years of sacrifice and hard work. If I worked at 7-11 she would have got like 250 a month. I was being made to pay 5 times based on the fact that I had it and for no other reason.
The judge actually said “You don’t need all that money anyway.” Hooray for justice ay?
Family law in America is insane. I would warn anyone(male) thinking of marriage that you are taking your life in your hands. My ex stole 15 years of sacrifice and success from me and set my life back that much.
Furthermore, as soon as the divorce went through, I was automatically a criminal. My wages were garnished, I was getting letter threatening to involve the Sheriff, suspend my license, etc. This woman, this marriage wrecked my entire life to the point that I can never recover. I’m done. Its over. Even if I got a 50% raise, most of it would just go to her.
I am an indentured servant for the next 15 years, a ward of the state. They monitor my salary and decide how much of it I get to keep.
Aint marriage lovely?
BTW she is now dating an attorney making 250000 which is what she wanted all along. I’m wiped out, but every time I see her she is beaming.
She is living a fantasy life brought to her by American family law.
They're right, of course. Literally not ALL women are like that. I would say about 90% of them are. At least from my decades of experience.
I can say truthfully with no exaggeration that my life would be 10 times better had I never married.
Some will say, “but what about the child?” Well, what about her. My ex tells me nothing about her life or what’s going on. She spends a lot of time hundreds of miles away with her grandparents.
The ex allows me a couple of hours with her about once or twice a month regardless of the agreement.
It sounds terrible but the is sweet and nice but she is basically a stranger to me. I have nothing to do with her.
I want the man-haters, as you put it, to tell me:
WHAT AM I PAYING FOR?
WHAT DID I DO TO DESERVE THIS?
WHY IS MY LIFE RUINED BECAUSE MY WIFE WANTED A DIVORCE?
It is insanity.
But screw it. Let em put me jail if they want. Who cares. My career is wiped out anyway.
Let’s see how much money she and her boyfriend get then.
My son gets to pay whatever the state decides he needs to pay. He’s brought home zero dollar checks. If it weren’t for us, his parents, he’d be homeless and hungry. We have not seen our grandson, his son, in over 4 years. He lives an hour and a half away from us. We cannot even call to talk to him.
If he’s late mailing that payment, his ex reports him as a dead beat dad.
I honestly hate that girl.
BTW, my son never married her. She swore she’d make him suffer and she has.
He has no rights except to shut up and take it.
Your son does have rights, but he needs to fight for them.
They CAN NOT take all of his income BY LAW. The maximum they can take in Louisiana is 50% of net income (R.S. 13:3881).
Yes, I know the orders can be higher than that, but that is the maximum amount that they can lawfully garnish.
Don’t know the specific law in other states, but they all have one. Find it and enforce it. Make sure he never comes home with zero again !!!
YES - $5,000 is the existing law.
Their proposed revision is $0.02... (lets round up to $100.)
SO YES YOU WOULD HIT IT IMMEDIATELY !!!
>>>> No I am not a father and I would spend all my money on my kids if were anyway. <<<<<
Welcome.
There is a difference between being able to do this voluntarily and being mandated to do it.
What is even more galling is when the money that is supposed to be spent on your child ISN’T.
>>>>> There is no debtors prison in America....except for Family Court. <<<<<<
Indeed so.
Men have the entire power of the federal and state governments against them. The government will imprison them if they are so much as a penny short on the child support.
However, once the women get the money, there is absolutely no accountability whatsoever. Child support money is mostly 1. new SUV 2. shopping 3. shoes 4. spending money for the women.
It's sickening.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.