CS arrears of $14k - Payor now on a budget

[tuffbrk]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NA

From Lawyers, Legal Forms, Law Books & Software, Free Information - Nolo

A judge in rural Clinton County, New York, has decided that one deadbeat dad lacks appropriate budgeting skills, and has handed the dad, called Thomas M., a list of items he is forbidden from purchasing until he has repaid $14,000 in child support arrearages to his ex-wife on behalf of their two daughters. Thomas can’t buy cigarettes or alcohol, nor can he buy a hunting or fishing license or any other item that the judge considers not to be a necessity of life. He must have the Probation Department’s written permission to purchase certain other items, including furniture and clothing. Thomas’s lawyer questioned whether the judge had authority to make such an order, but the broad language of the applicable law certainly gives him a lot of leeway.

 

[mistoffolees]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NA

From Lawyers, Legal Forms, Law Books & Software, Free Information - Nolo

A judge in rural Clinton County, New York, has decided that one deadbeat dad lacks appropriate budgeting skills, and has handed the dad, called Thomas M., a list of items he is forbidden from purchasing until he has repaid $14,000 in child support arrearages to his ex-wife on behalf of their two daughters. Thomas can’t buy cigarettes or alcohol, nor can he buy a hunting or fishing license or any other item that the judge considers not to be a necessity of life. He must have the Probation Department’s written permission to purchase certain other items, including furniture and clothing. Thomas’s lawyer questioned whether the judge had authority to make such an order, but the broad language of the applicable law certainly gives him a lot of leeway.

While I appreciate the principle, I agree with the lawyer - I'm not sure the judge has the authority to make such an order. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in appeals.

 

[nextwife]

If he were married, I wonder if the judge could impose such a restriction on his "household" if spouse has own source of income and buying power? Clothing, though? Does the judge mean RETAIL clothing, or does that apply to clothes bought at Goodwill? What if the job requires certain work clothes, for example?

I recently saw a bankruptcy plan where they weren't paying their mortgage of aprox $400/mo, but had included $600/mo for cigarettes!

 

[CSO286]

There was a recent contempt hearing in my area, where the magistrate asked the payor how much he smoked. Payor stated a pack a day. Judge took the price of a pack, multipled by 30 and ordered him to pay $150 on his arrears.

 

[nextwife]

I also wonder how that ruling could be imposed if the NCP was also parenting a different minor child in their home? I get the tobacco and alchohol, but not be able to buy clothes, maybe a bed if the kiddo was transitioning from a crib or toddler bed?

Gee, I don't smoke. Imagine how much I could save if I did, and quit?

 

[LdiJ]

I also wonder how that ruling could be imposed if the NCP was also parenting a different minor child in their home? I get the tobacco and alchohol, but not be able to buy clothes, maybe a bed if the kiddo was transitioning from a crib or toddler bed?

Gee, I don't smoke. Imagine how much I could save if I did, and quit?

I suspect that we are talking about a parent who made a fool out of themselves in court, and therefore that is why the judge made those kinds of orders.

I suspect that if the parent makes a concerted and consistant effort to pay his child support on time, and makes decent headway with his arrearages, this issue will not arise again.

 

[nextwife]

I suspect that we are talking about a parent who made a fool out of themselves in court, and therefore that is why the judge made those kinds of orders.

I suspect that if the parent makes a concerted and consistant effort to pay his child support on time, and makes decent headway with his arrearages, this issue will not arise again.

Because I deal with bankrupt, disabled and unemployed persons all day long, I guess I'm more inclined to believe that a lot of people who don't pay their obligations, can't pay their obligations.

 

[mistoffolees]

I suspect that we are talking about a parent who made a fool out of themselves in court, and therefore that is why the judge made those kinds of orders.

I suspect that if the parent makes a concerted and consistant effort to pay his child support on time, and makes decent headway with his arrearages, this issue will not arise again.

You can suspect whatever you want. I'm not sure how that gives the judge the ability to overrule someone's Constitutional rights.

 

[LdiJ]

You can suspect whatever you want. I'm not sure how that gives the judge the ability to overrule someone's Constitutional rights.

It doesn't...but judges don't generally make those kinds of "creative" orders unless they are truly fed up. I agree, its probably an unconstitutional order and the judge likely doesn't expect to enforce it. I think that the judge was trying to make a point, and to scare the ncp straight.

 

[LdiJ]

Because I deal with bankrupt, disabled and unemployed persons all day long, I guess I'm more inclined to believe that a lot of people who don't pay their obligations, can't pay their obligations.

Nextie, I really DO understand your point. However, someone who truly cannot pay their obligations has a responsibility to take it back to court for a reduction. While I agree that the number of non-payers has arisen in these economic times, there still were a large number of non-payers out there when the economy was booming.

 

[mistoffolees]

It doesn't...but judges don't generally make those kinds of "creative" orders unless they are truly fed up. I agree, its probably an unconstitutional order and the judge likely doesn't expect to enforce it. I think that the judge was trying to make a point, and to scare the ncp straight.

And, once again, the judges job is not to 'scare nap straight'. The judge's job is to interpret the law and apply judgments that are consistent with state law and the Constitution.

As I said - I think that what he's trying to accomplish is honorable, but breaking the law to try to prove his point isn't.

 

[LdiJ]

And, once again, the judges job is not to 'scare nap straight'. The judge's job is to interpret the law and apply judgments that are consistent with state law and the Constitution.

As I said - I think that what he's trying to accomplish is honorable, but breaking the law to try to prove his point isn't.

Of course its not, but judges do this sort of thing far more frequently than people realize...expecting that the average person will not appeal the ruling.

Do I like it? No, for the most part I think its very wrong. However, that doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

 

[mistoffolees]

Of course its not, but judges do this sort of thing far more frequently than people realize...expecting that the average person will not appeal the ruling.

Do I like it? No, for the most part I think its very wrong. However, that doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

I don't think anyone said it didn't happen. Obviously, it happened or the story wouldn't be here.

But I said it was wrong for the judge to do that and you were defending the just. It sounds like you think it's OK.

 

[LdiJ]

I don't think anyone said it didn't happen. Obviously, it happened or the story wouldn't be here.

But I said it was wrong for the judge to do that and you were defending the just. It sounds like you think it's OK.

If I gave the impression that I thought it was ok, then you misunderstood. What I said was why I thought it happened, and that the judge likely knew it wasn't enforceable.

Let me explain the reason for my thought process. Once upon a time a judge made an order in a gpv case that was flat out unconstitutional. The parent decided to refuse to obey the order and the gps hauled the parent into court for contempt. They judge admitted that the order was unconstitutional and unenforceable but stated that he "hoped" the parents would honor it. No contempt for the parent.

I think that is what is happening here. The judge knows he cannot enforce the order but hopes the party will be scared enough to honor it.

 

[tuffbrk]

I don't see hwo it would be enforceable at all. The guy can pull out $200 a week in cash from his account and how would the Judge know how it was spent? Force the guy to submit monthly receipts or something?

I just think the Judge's actions are another indicator that they are human, they do not always follow the law, you really can't have preconcieved notions that what is "right" or "on the books" is what is going to occur in Family Court...

The Judge acted on his frustration. It was probably the millionth time that he heard how the CS number is not affordable...