Job Contacts ordered by the court in California

[Bali Hai]

You are making an assumption that has no basis in fact. But then, that's what you're best at, isn't it?

I'm good at routing out ALL of the facts. Exposing certain facts that some would prefer stay buried and not deal with.

 

[stealth2]

My sincerest apologies to you and others who very accurately pointed this out.

I actually appreciate that, Bali. Thank you.

 

[cbg]

Post a link to an actual case where an actual man was jailed for not making appropriate job contacts and strong-arming an employer into hiring them. Until you do, I continue maintain that first, it is unlikely that anyone, of either gender, is going to be jailed because they are unable to find a job within a specified length of time and second, that you need to start thinking with your brain and not your testosterone.

 

[Bali Hai]

Post a link to an actual case where an actual man was jailed for not making appropriate job contacts and strong-arming an employer into hiring them. Until you do, I continue maintain that first, it is unlikely that anyone, of either gender, is going to be jailed because they are unable to find a job within a specified length of time and second, that you need to start thinking with your brain and not your testosterone.

I can post a link to an actual case where an actual man was jailed for not making court ordered alimony payments because he lost his at will employment. Was he making appropriate job contacts or not was irreverent to the court. The alimony was non-modifiable.

I can't post a link where a man was strong-arming an employer into hiring them. I never said that, and don't know how you came up with that.

And I don't like being insulted by you.

 

[Bali Hai]

I actually appreciate that, Bali. Thank you.

You are welcome stealth.

 

[LdiJ]

I'm good at routing out ALL of the facts. Exposing certain facts that some would prefer stay buried and not deal with.

How can you possibly say that making assumptions is routing out all of the facts? You have already admitted that you were wrong to assume that this had anything to do with alimony. In fact, its far more likely that it has to do with child support...as in the ex wife being the one obligated to pay child support.

 

[cbg]

I can post a link to an actual case where an actual man was jailed for not making court ordered alimony payments because he lost his at will employment. Was he making appropriate job contacts or not was irreverent to the court. The alimony was non-modifiable.

I can't post a link where a man was strong-arming an employer into hiring them. I never said that, and don't know how you came up with that.

And I don't like being insulted by you.

But that is not the same situation as this one. ALL we know is that ACCORDING TO THE OP, the wife has been required to make x number of job contacts per week, and the OP does not think she is doing it well enough. EVERYTHING else in this thread is an assumption, mostly started by you. You're the one who brought jail into it, and you're the one who insisted that a man would have been treated differently. Not making court ordered alimony payment and not making job contacts are not the same thing.

As for strong-arming an employer into hiring them, that's the natural progression of your assumptions. NO ONE, man or woman, can force an employer to hire them. So how can anyone, man or woman, be jailed for not getting a job? But you're suggesting that they can be. So....

I don't really care if you like being insulted by me or not. Start thinking with something other than your grosser appendages and I won't have to.

 

[Bali Hai]

But that is not the same situation as this one. ALL we know is that ACCORDING TO THE OP, the wife has been required to make x number of job contacts per week, and the OP does not think she is doing it well enough. EVERYTHING else in this thread is an assumption, mostly started by you. You're the one who brought jail into it, and you're the one who insisted that a man would have been treated differently. Not making court ordered alimony payment and not making job contacts are not the same thing.

As for strong-arming an employer into hiring them, that's the natural progression of your assumptions. NO ONE, man or woman, can force an employer to hire them. So how can anyone, man or woman, be jailed for not getting a job? But you're suggesting that they can be. So....

You're mistakenly trying to apply common sense to the family court system where none exists.(see below)

I don't really care if you like being insulted by me or not. Start thinking with something other than your grosser appendages and I won't have to.

Read below:

http://www.nj.com/hunterdon-county-democrat/index.ssf/2012/12/divorcee_sits_in_jail_while_ua.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-08-26/jail-becomes-home-for-husband-stuck-with-lifetime-alimony

 

[Proserpina]

Read below:

http://www.nj.com/hunterdon-county-democrat/index.ssf/2012/12/divorcee_sits_in_jail_while_ua.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-08-26/jail-becomes-home-for-husband-stuck-with-lifetime-alimony

You do realize the difference between "jailed for NON-PAYMENT" and "jailed for NOT HAVING A JOB", right?

 

[Proserpina]

Oh. Okay, never mind. He knows he's wrong; this is just another very sad attempt at using this forum as his personal little soap-box.

Carry on, guys.

 

[cbg]

The cases you have linked in no way match what is happening with the OP.

But, you clearly don't care as long as you can twist what is happening to suit your own agenda.

 

[Bali Hai]

You do realize the difference between "jailed for NON-PAYMENT" and "jailed for NOT HAVING A JOB", right?

No job, no ability to pay, JAIL.

Do you think OP's ex-wife is ordered to get a job by the judge because the judge thinks she should have a job? Of course not, the judge wants the money she earns from that job to benefit OP for whatever reason.

 

[LdiJ]

No job, no ability to pay, JAIL.

Do you think OP's ex-wife is ordered to get a job by the judge because the judge thinks she should have a job? Of course not, the judge wants the money she earns from that job to benefit OP for whatever reason.

Judges send people to jail for contempt when the judge believes that they have the ability to pay and are not paying.

Judges order people to try to get a job when the judge knows that they have no ability to pay. However, it is nearly impossible for a judge to send someone to jail for contempt if they are unable to find a job, because a judge cannot make someone hire them.

Stop being obtuse Bali. You are just pushing your own agenda here.

 

[Bali Hai]

Judges send people to jail for contempt when the judge believes that they have the ability to pay and are not paying.

Judges order people to try to get a job when the judge knows that they have no ability to pay. However, it is nearly impossible for a judge to send someone to jail for contempt if they are unable to find a job, because a judge cannot make someone hire them.

Stop being obtuse Bali. You are just pushing your own agenda here.

The examples that I provided show that judge's do send people to jail when they use their unlimited discretion and believe without evidence that someone should be working and complying with the orders that they hung around their neck.

I realize that judges cannot make an employer hire someone. As an aside, in NY judges try to order their employer (the State of New York) to give them a raise. You might want to read up on that.

We are back to square one. Women expect special treatment from the family court system and the judges go right along with that.

Bottom line. If OP's ex-wife doesn't obey the court order, she should be jailed.

 

[cbg]

Bottom line: If the OP's wife is making the job contacts as required, she will not be jailed.

The fact that the OP fails to recognize that many if not most employers require online contacts nowadays does not make the online contacts a violation.