Unable to pay child support, poor parents land behind bars

MSNBC ^ | 9/12/2011 | Mike Brunker

[PieterCasparzen]

It may not be a crime to be poor, but it can land you behind bars if you also are behind on your child-support payments.

1. Only on msnbc.com 1. Updated 67 minutes ago 9/12/2011 12:10:41 PM +00:00 A day in the life of Iran’s president 2. Updated 70 minutes ago 9/12/2011 12:07:45 PM +00:00 Obama: We’re not where we need to be 3. Unable to pay child support, poor parents jailed 4. Getty Images Stock No promotion yet? Maybe you're not the boss' favorite 5. How 9/11 changed Pakistan 6. Image:Banff National Park UGC It's A Snap! Vote for your favorite travel photo 7. Image: Survivor 23 cast CBS Best Bets: 'Survivor,' 'Top Model' return to TV

Thousands of so-called “deadbeat” parents are jailed each year in the U.S. after failing to pay court-ordered child support — the vast majority of them for withholding or hiding money out of spite or a feeling that they’ve been unfairly gouged by the courts.

But in what might seem like an un-American plot twist from a Charles Dickens’ novel, advocates for the poor say, some parents are wrongly being locked away without any regard for their ability to pay — sometimes without the benefit of legal representation.

Randy Miller, a 39-year-old Iraqi war vet, found himself in that situation in November, when a judge in Floyd County, Ga., sent him to jail for violating a court order to pay child support.

He said he was stunned when the judge rebuffed his argument that he had made regular payments for more than a decade before losing his job in July 2009 and had recently resumed working.

...

[MamaTexan]

In Suits at common law

Except divorces are NOT Suits at common law unless they are common law marriages.

Once the State became involved and everyone was required to get a marriage 'license' [the legal definition of which is governmental permission], the product of the marriage [children] became subject to the administrative laws of the State.....and there are no RIGHTS under administrative law, only privileges.

[Hot Tabasco]

I was dating a woman for a while this past spring who had two daughters at home; an 18 yr. old and a 13 yr. old. The ex hadn't been paying the required support or furnishing the required health insurancefor the 13 yrs. old in almost a year because he was unemployed. Of course that didn't prevent him from just purchasing a house.........

He actually had the audacity to petition the court to have his child support reduced - retroactive to when he stopped paying.......

The woman sought out an attorney to represent her but it was going to cost her approx. $3,000 UP FRONT....she of course didn't have the money so she was on her own. I don't know what happened beyond that point because we stopped seeing each other.

As a side note, the ex-husband had visitation rights on weekends. Unfortunately, he was an alcoholic and all he would do while the daughter was with him was drink at home or take her to the VFW with him. In either case, he'd ultimately get stumbling drunk and pass out at home.......The poor daughter was becoming a wreck.

There are no easy solutions in divorces and every case is different. But if a guy has a child then he has a financial obligation to provide the support the court orders........

[from occupied ga]

You’re simple-minded.

What an intelligent comment. From this I gather you're either a poor planner or too lazy to look for a job. (Or maybe both)

[jacknhoo]

"What an intelligent comment. From this I gather you're either a poor planner or too lazy to look for a job. (Or maybe both)" Like I said, you're simple-minded! Too freakin' funny, how that is what the simply mind "gathers." As if only his simple-minded assumptions are somehow facts of life...LOL!

[from occupied ga]

Like I care what some loser thinks.

[PieterCasparzen]

Except divorces are NOT Suits at common law unless they are common law marriages.

Once the State became involved and everyone was required to get a marriage 'license' [the legal definition of which is governmental permission], the product of the marriage [children] became subject to the administrative laws of the State.....and there are no RIGHTS under administrative law, only privileges.

Yes, what you describe is what lawyers and judges will parrot nowadays, however

nothing trumps Constitution.

and

when we speak of "administrative" law, I can only presume you refer to courts functioning in the manner of courts of equity. While the Delaware Court of Chancery works very well for business, a business is not a person and the incorporators, when they incorporate in Delaware, are submitting their corporation to Delaware law, so that's Constitutional, as far as I can see. But when the subject changes to individual, real persons who are U.S. Citizens, they retain all rights not granted to the Federal government by the Constitution and State governments by their respective Constitutions. Just to be double sure, the Bill of Rights was ratified, to clarify some things the government had no right to do. One of the major ones was to deprive someone of property without a trial by jury.

Courts of equity historically served the purpose of providing an appeal in cases where a court of law, in following the letter of the law, yielded a result that was unfair, i.e., a miscarriage of justice. They are supposed to be used in America for non-monetary relief, i.e., an injunction, a claim for specific performance, a contract modification, etc. To use them to unilaterally deprive a person of a good portion of their assets is the grossest miscarriage of justice and utterly outrageous.

But our dear legal profession has seen to it that our legal system is "streamlined", i.e., we have turned our courts into such an efficient production line that... surprise, surprise, we have become an extremely litigious society. Like every good software company has learned, the key to getting your sales to increase is to make sure a good number of other people are enriching themselves along with you. For lawyers, those co-beneficiaries are called plaintiffs.

This essay

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/01/07/the-loss-of-the-right-to-a-trial-by-jury-child-support-and-divorce-cases-in-america/

has some very interesting reading for those who want to know where their jury trial rights went. He actually points out a number of Constitutional problems with the way the legal system works today.

[WOBBLY BOB]

In MN, you have to pay via The State (so they get their cut)
if kid(s) are involved (even if mom/kids are NOT getting State assistance)

It’s the perfect way to grow The State and shrink the family.

This is the way it is the last time I was “in the system”...not too many years ago.

[wordsofearnest]

But it does qualify as good advice.

[wordsofearnest]

I told my son to find his wife in church.

[wordsofearnest]

Amen to that.

[MrB]

Have him memorize proverbs 31 and use it as a guide.

[MamaTexan]

But when the subject changes to individual, real persons who are U.S. Citizens, they retain all rights not granted to the Federal government by the Constitution and State governments by their respective Constitutions.

Originally yes, but that may no longer be the case.

"... the term `citizen' in the United States, is analogous to the term `subject' in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government."
State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 122

[yldstrk]

The actual father not the boy toy she’s living with

[yldstrk]

You had some scenario with mother living with a millionaire and millionaire having to support a kid not his. The Courts will base child support on the income of bioparents, not live ins.

[PieterCasparzen]

Right, that’s just sayin’ if you’re reading something from common law and applying it to a U.S. case, every place you see the word subject you replace it with the word citizen, cuz that’s what the United States calls it’s people.

[Hodar]

The Courts will base child support on the income of bioparents, not live ins.

Again, false.

Consideration of all income: All income and resources of each parent’s household shall be disclosed and considered by the court when the court determines the child support obligation of each parent.

Worksheet for calculating Child Support payments

Before you go making blanket statements, please do me the honor of verifying that you know what you are talking about. Again, you are WRONG.

If the non-custodial parent marries someone who earns more money than the bio-parent; the non-bio (step-parent) will also have their income calculated into the child support payment. Again, the law has decided that fathers are slaves, and anyone they marry in the future is also a slave.

Now, did you know that this obligation does not necessarily end at the age of 18? Courts have ordered that the non-custodial parent also pay for college, at any college the child decides to attend?

[AbolishCSEU]

I hope you never get caught up in the divorce “machine” of the Western world, particularly if you are a white male.

It’s open season on white males in particular. States get federal dollar “kick backs” for every dollar of matriarchy, errr I mean “child” support they collect. There is NO incentive to grant downward modifications when the (usually) non custodial father loses his job through no fault of his own. Instead his income is “imputed” which means CS is based on what he COULD be earning.

My husband’s ex wife is re-married to a well-heeled man and earns more than my husband does yet she takes half my husband’s income in NON-arrears CS. He is left with $200 a week take home pay. And he PAYS taxes on April 15th on top of withholding.

She also works, ironically, as a child protective worker, yet she’s alienated all three of his children against him as well as file false abuse claims, stolen their college funds that my husband set aside for them, failed to claim the raiding of said funds on the tax return and tried to stick HIM for the interest and penalities. All three children continue to fail school semester after semester yet their is no accounting for her so-called “parenting.”

My husband is soft hearted so during the divorce, he let her take EVERYTHING including the entire proceeds of the sale of the marital home. In exchange for his kindness, she went out and got a cut throat attorney, kept all his family souvenirs, saddled him with “marital” debt that she ran up while separated. Left him literally with nothing but the shirt on his back. Since then she’s been less than honest with the CSEU and has pocketed and been grossly overpaid in CS above and beyond the 29% gross base by keeping quiet years after daycare expenses and orthodonture expenses have ceased. Just TRY to get a downward mod in NYS. You have a better chance of hitting the lottery three times in a row.

The system is totally anti-father. However if you happen to be a non custodial bioMOM then the courts look the other way if you decide to truly walk away from your children (as opposed to giving up in hopelessness after mom has permanently brainwashed the children against you) and “find yourself.” The judges will literally trip over themselves with calculators trying to find a way for non custodial bioMOM to NOT pay child support to custodial dad.

Equal rights, yeah right.

[AbolishCSEU]

I hope you never get caught up in the divorce “machine” of the Western world, particularly if you are a white male.

It’s open season on white males in particular. States get federal dollar “kick backs” for every dollar of matriarchy, errr I mean “child” support they collect. There is NO incentive to grant downward modifications when the (usually) non custodial father loses his job through no fault of his own. Instead his income is “imputed” which means CS is based on what he COULD be earning.

My husband’s ex wife is re-married to a well-heeled man and earns more than my husband does yet she takes half my husband’s income in NON-arrears CS. He is left with $200 a week take home pay. And he PAYS taxes on April 15th on top of withholding.

She also works, ironically, as a child protective worker, yet she’s alienated all three of his children against him as well as file false abuse claims, stolen their college funds that my husband set aside for them, failed to claim the raiding of said funds on the tax return and tried to stick HIM for the interest and penalities. All three children continue to fail school semester after semester yet their is no accounting for her so-called “parenting.”

My husband is soft hearted so during the divorce, he let her take EVERYTHING including the entire proceeds of the sale of the marital home. In exchange for his kindness, she went out and got a cut throat attorney, kept all his family souvenirs, saddled him with “marital” debt that she ran up while separated. Left him literally with nothing but the shirt on his back. Since then she’s been less than honest with the CSEU and has pocketed and been grossly overpaid in CS above and beyond the 29% gross base by keeping quiet years after daycare expenses and orthodonture expenses have ceased. Just TRY to get a downward mod in NYS. You have a better chance of hitting the lottery three times in a row.

The system is totally anti-father. However if you happen to be a non custodial bioMOM then the courts look the other way if you decide to truly walk away from your children (as opposed to giving up in hopelessness after mom has permanently brainwashed the children against you) and “find yourself.” The judges will literally trip over themselves with calculators trying to find a way for non custodial bioMOM to NOT pay child support to custodial dad.

Equal rights, yeah right.

[AbolishCSEU]

Exactly! I LOVE these novices who comment and have never had to go through the world of indentured servitude called family court!!

NYS it is 21 mandatory no matter what plus 50% of college costs. In my husband’s agreement it says “CS until 21 or graduation from college whichever comes LAST”

This is an open invitation to keep failing semester after semester and have daddykins pay for it.