Tennessee Child Support System Ruled Unconstitutional

wztv ^

[chance33_98]

I did agree, for reasons stated several times in other posts elsewhere - but the courts never notified me of anything, all the info was sent to her. looooong story :) but if your bored later I could freepmail ya...

[RogerFGay]

Thanks for the ping. I'll keep my eye out for more information on this. I'd like to see the ruling and find out what the constitutional basis for the decision was. It's great to see the courts using the Constitution again isn't it?

FEI (For everybody's information) -- details on the Georgia case: The Beginning Of The End Of Child Support Reform

[RogerFGay]

Violates equal protection. Here's an article on the Tennessee decision:

Tennessee child support rules struck down

[Free the USA]

bttt

[RogerFGay]

Men's News Daily: Now in Tennessee: No Legitimate Purpose Found in Child Support Law

[farmfriend]

ping

[RogerFGay]

New bump list

[Orangedog]

Don't expect any change from this. The guidelines will go back to whatever commission has been appointed (which is also likely to be unconstitutional) to come up with the made-up dollar amounts that the state uses. What ever dollar they have to reduce by the ruling of this court will be raised in some other part of the guidelines. The important thing to keep in mind here is that whenever there is a review of the guidelines, the overall dollar amount ALWAYS goes up. Unless high courts declare the entire system unconstitutional, there will not be any change in this industry.

[Orangedog]

The State can not revoke the child and thus you can be jailed if you fail to support your child to the best of your ability (as the state defines your ability).

What does ability have to do with the actual cost of raising a child?

[Orangedog]

From what I read, if you only have kids one divorce, you're still hosed. IANAL, but it looks like this only applies to people who have kids from more than one marriage/mother.

[RogerFGay]

From what I read, if you only have kids one divorce, you're still hosed. IANAL, but it looks like this only applies to people who have kids from more than one marriage/mother.

Yes, but I believe it's important that the Court recognized that there's a limit to the arbitrary goofiness we have to put up with. They applied the lowest level of review and still found that this particular manipulation of ncp income did not serve a legitimate government purpose. The Georgia court made a similar finding and declared the whole guideline unconstitutional. If the Tennessee court is consistent, it should declare the whole guideline unconstitutional when asked to do so. I don't want to make anyone assume that's a trivial decision, but it's the same fundamental constitutional principle.

[Orangedog]

Agreed. But it would have been nice if their decision would have been a bit broader than it was. I guess it's a start...something to build on in one state.

[TN Republican]

Why should the man go to jail for living off his new spouse's income? Lots of women double-dip the same way, but nobody would think of coming after them for fraud when their new husband could be paying the childrens' bills.

If you are going to propose that people be sent to jail when they are receiving private assistance and not paying child support, why don't you also propose the same thing for people who are on public assistance when they could be working? There is almost no incentive for a woman to stay married if she wants to live for free and make her husband's life miserable. The state will roll out the red carpet for her.

[RogerFGay]

Agreed. But it would have been nice if their decision would have been a bit broader than it was. I guess it's a start...something to build on in one state.

It would have been nice but it's something to build on.

[RogerFGay]

SOURCE

Despite an appeals court ruling overturning state guidelines for calculating child support, the Department of Human Services is "of the opinion" the current rules are in effect until the issue is settled by the Tennessee Supreme Court.

The state Court of Appeals in recent months has twice struck down state child support rules as unconstitutional because they fail to consider a parent's obligation to all of his or her children when setting support for children of another relationship.

The ruling in a Knoxville case in January is on appeal to the Supreme Court. That case is almost identical to one from Shelby County that was ruled unconstitutional last week.

Though he said he would not tell courts what to do, "It is our opinion that the guidelines are still in effect, pending the ruling of the Supreme Court,'' said William Russell, general counsel for the Tennessee Department of Human Services in Nashville.

The ruling last week involved a Memphis man who said the costs of raising two children in his marriage should be considered when setting payments for the support of a child from a previous relationship.

The guidelines, which have been in effect since the late 1980s, do not allow consideration of children other than those in the support order.

The latest ruling brought a wait-and-see response from Juvenile Court.

"Really, there is no change until the Supreme Court rules on the Eastern District case that is now on appeal,'' said Mitch Morgan, director of child support at Juvenile Court.

Meanwhile, Morgan said the court was fielding calls Monday from parents who wanted to know if their child support obligations would be affected.

Morgan and others said the impact could be considerable if the Supreme Court agrees the guidelines are unconstitutional.

"There are lots of cases where children are born and an order is set, and the obligor remarries and has other children who are under no court order,'' Russell said. "So he may have two or three sets of children, and it could cause everybody to have to go back and reconsider. If the Supreme Court sides with (the two cases) then I think you would see a lot of petitions to modify.''

Local lawyers who handle such cases applauded the rulings.

"I think this ruling is long overdue,'' said David Caywood. "Ever since this issue first arose I have taken the position that it was unconstitutional to place some children in the first-class section of an airplane and the other children back in coach.

"That is exactly what has happened. These children have nothing to do about the progression in which they were born, nor whether they were born into a conventional family or unconventional family.''

Fellow attorney Kay Farese Turner agreed.

"What happened under Tennessee child support guidelines is that it treated after-born children unequally,'' she said.

She said there are a number of significant inequities in current child support guidelines, some of which end up with a noncustodial parent paying unrealistic sums for child support.

Gail Sevier, the attorney who represented the plaintiff in the case in Friday's appeals court ruling, said there is debate among lawyers about how child support should be calculated, since the appeals court "didn't give any guidance on that.''

She said that technically, Juvenile, Circuit and Chancery courts could go ahead and modify cases now, but many probably will wait for the Supreme Court to rule.

- Shirley Downing:

[chance33_98]

Thanks for the update! Damn child support people. It is something I myself often wondered about. I have a new daughter and that was never considered in my old support order - which is now put on hold due to X's adoption: Although I got a new letter yesterday saying they were still taking support out of my check from my new employer and holding it at CSEA until they have all the paperwork done (which could take a few months). They already admit she is not going to get the money and I will get a refund from what I am paying now, but still have to have it come out until they get around to having the judge modify the order. Will be a nice savings account though :)

[SingleMom]

As far as putting fathers in jail for not paying child support, I don't agree with this practice where the father isn't able to pay the sums ordered. When the woman remarries or when the new father adopts the child from another marriage, he should be responsible for the financial care of that child. However I feel first-borne children should continue to take priority over children born later. Consider the fact that mothers usually get the children, and the added stress of raising them alone. We have to financially and emotionally support them whether we get child support or not. And that's if we're lucky and it comes on time. Don't be fooled, being a single parent is NOT an easy task. A single parent with children does not lead the same lifestyle as a single adult with no children to rear. The separated father no longer has the full responsibility or stress of this situation. He is free to begin new relationships and make more babies at will. And if he makes more babies I am to understand that because of his CHOICE, my children will have to go back on Food Stamps or I, the single mom, may have to go back to working two jobs to keep the lights on and clothes on their backs while my children are at home numerous hours by themselves being raised by the TV. So in essence, the kids lose BOTH parents. Sounds more like the OLD kids got coach and the NEW ones get first class. They get their daddy, their mommy and an even greater portion of financial support. Daddies, did you just throw away your old kids? Just as there is a cap on how many babies you can claim on your Earned Income Credit, there ought to be a cap on how many times the Child Support pie gets sliced everytime "Single Daddy" decides to make more babies. A wise woman has to consider how many children she has to feed before deciding on having yet another. Men ought to consider the same. If you know you can't afford to feed them, don't make more.