BCB.. Debate #2: NCP rules vs. CP rules

[Whyte Noise]

What is the name of your state? Doesn't matter.

As for the other side of my debate... the differences in laws and punishments for CP's and NCP's...

1.) Is contempt of a court order not contempt of a court order, no matter what the offense was that caused the person to be in contempt?

2.) Why is the puncishment of an NCP that is in contempt of a court order for CS more severe than than the punishment of a CP who is in contempt of a court order for withholding a child from the other parent?

3.) Why are there set levels of "punishment" when it comes to NCP's not paying CS (i.e first, wage attachment, then income tax intercept, then license revocation, then liens on real property, then jail, etc.) and there is no such set level of punishment for CP's that continuously deny visitations?

4.) Why is it that an order for child support will specifically state a sanction for being behind in CS (i.e. "If the amount due is equal to or greater than the amount payable for one month, the payments required to be made shall be collected by the process of continuing garnishment of support") Yet, there are no such sanctions in a custody order for the CP that again denies visitation? (i.e. If the amount of time denied is equal to or greater than the amount of parenting time specified for that particular month, then the person denying visitations shall be in contempt of this court order and shall be fined $XXX amount")

5.) Why will a state have laws on their books to address certain issues, yet when a person tries to use those laws and get justice, the court refuses to apply those laws? (This one is for CP's and NCP's both.)

6.) Why will a state more readily hold an NCP in contempt for non-payment of child support than they will a CP for denial of visitation?

I know that there are deadbeat NCP's and deadbeat CP's as well. I'm not arguing the numbers of each. I'm just simply wanting to know why an NCP is faced with more sanctions, more often, for not paying CS, than a CP is for not allowing visitation. What makes one thing more "wrong" than the other?

 

[Boxcarbill]

What is the name of your state? Doesn't matter.

As for the other side of my debate... the differences in laws and punishments for CP's and NCP's...

1.) Is contempt of a court order not contempt of a court order, no matter what the offense was that caused the person to be in contempt?

It depends upon the state's laws and it depends upon whether the act sought to be enforced by contempt is specific enough to be enforced by contempt.

2.) Why is the puncishment of an NCP that is in contempt of a court order for CS more severe than than the punishment of a CP who is in contempt of a court order for withholding a child from the other parent?

I disagree with the premise. You are asking, "When did you stop beating your wife?" To answer the question, I would have to accept the premise. I don't.

3.) Why are there set levels of "punishment" when it comes to NCP's not paying CS (i.e first, wage attachment, then income tax intercept, then license revocation, then liens on real property, then jail, etc.) and there is no such set level of punishment for CP's that continuously deny visitations?

Ah, so you notice that the steps to gain enforcement increase upon repeated none performance! The increase in levels of enforcement is about debt collection. Money judgments are recovered through garnishments, liens on property, foreclosure on liens. Income tax refund intercepts are available on child support judgments. None of these are available to anyone who is not seeking to collect a judgment or to secure a loan of money.

Jail and fines are punishments for anyone found in contempt.



4.) Why is it that an order for child support will specifically state a sanction for being behind in CS (i.e. "If the amount due is equal to or greater than the amount payable for one month, the payments required to be made shall be collected by the process of continuing garnishment of support") Yet, there are no such sanctions in a custody order for the CP that again denies visitation? (i.e. If the amount of time denied is equal to or greater than the amount of parenting time specified for that particular month, then the person denying visitations shall be in contempt of this court order and shall be fined $XXX amount")

I explained liens and garnishments. Texas orders do spell out the sanctions for failure to allow visitation and failure to pay child support and that both may be enforced by contempt and that upon a finding of contempt you can be jailed and fined and attorney's fees and court cost will be awarded in favor of the party which is forced to seek enforcement of the order. The remedy, however, for the violation of visitation is make of week-ends or other lost time. The person denied possession or access is entitled to decide the time of the additional possession or access. The remedy for failure to pay child support is reduction to money judgement. The judgment has to be enforce at that is the purpose of garnishment and liens.


5.) Why will a state have laws on their books to address certain issues, yet when a person tries to use those laws and get justice, the court refuses to apply those laws? (This one is for CP's and NCP's both.)

Usually because the law is obsolete or the laws duplicate an existing law or because they are cannot be realistically enforced without sending a police officer to live with the party and to look over their shoulder to get performance, which cannot be done.

6.) Why will a state more readily hold an NCP in contempt for non-payment of child support than they will a CP for denial of visitation?

I don't know that they readily hold either in contempt. Contempt with jail time involves U.S. constitutional rights and safe guards. So it is not done "automatically" or "readily."

I know that there are deadbeat NCP's and deadbeat CP's as well. I'm not arguing the numbers of each. I'm just simply wanting to know why an NCP is faced with more sanctions, more often, for not paying CS, than a CP is for not allowing visitation. What makes one thing more "wrong" than the other?

It isn't that one thing is more wrong than the other but a child can live longer without visitation than without financial support and an financial obligation has more means of enforcing than visitation rights or other civil equitable remedies--such as an injunction or specific performance.

 

[Whyte Noise]

"I disagree with the premise. You are asking, "When did you stop beating your wife?" To answer the question, I would have to accept the premise. I don't."

<<<I see you've handled your share of depositions. It's all in the language. If anyone ever doubted you're in Law, then that question should clear things up.

But actually... this last sentence of yours pretty much sums it all up... "an financial obligation has more means of enforcing than visitation rights or other civil equitable remedies--such as an injunction or specific performance."

And, therein lies the problem I feel. It's so much easier to enforce one, than the other, and no one wants to take the steps to make the playing filed equal.

As for your answer to number 3... it goes back to my above statement. Why not have the same "level" system for one group as you do the other. I understand you can't levy garnishments against a CP for denial. I've known that. But say... start off with... ok, you denied 4 days, the NCP gets 4 extra days next month, Then, next denial, NCP gets double the amount of denied days, then, 3rd denial you lose CS for one month, 4th denial you lose CS for 2 months, 5th denial you are looking at 10 days in jail and the NCP having custody for those 10 days, 6th denial, 30 days in jail with the NCP having physical custody for those 30 days, 7th denial, you are looking at a custody change. (I know... people will say, "Why take the CS away from them? That's for the kids, not the CP! Why punish the kids?" Look at it like this... if the CS gets taken away for a month or 2 months, who's fault will it be? The CP's. This will be something they brought on themselves and they have no one to blame but the person looking back at them in the mirror. They know the consequences for denial, and if they continue to do it, I wouldn't feel sorry for them one bit.)

Like I said, I understand you can't force the same exact judgements on CP's and NCP's for different "contempts", but the NCP has all these different levels depending on the severity... why cant the CP too? Why can't the remedies be more equal?