Arrears Payments

[Roscleo]

Constitution

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

 

[Grace_Adler]

Thank you roscleo! Guess someone needs to tell this state they are in the wrong. I could totally be misinterperting things but from the way it sounds they can enforce you to get a job and to look for one. Like I said I was just curious. This is a good topic for debate between state and federal govt. huh?

 

[karma1]

Grace...

I just reread that whole thread pertaining to ryrysmom situation (although I saw one of her posts say she did not have any "situations" now?), and it does seem as if the 50$ a month is not getting to her-my mistake.
such an interesting topic, though, this having to work and involuntary servitude-I know I have read questions about this before and the consensus was that NCP's have no legal leg to stand on when it comes to being forced to work and pay support (not a real good way to put this but that is what it boiled down to from what I read).
are we all totally confused yet????

 

[Grace_Adler]

Yeah.. but then again I stay confused..LOL!

 

[Grandma B]

Since failure to pay child support is a crime, a court should then be allowed to impose "involuntary servitude."

 

[karma1]

Good point, GrandmaB....

and might I ask if you know anything about this subject as well? (being forced to work being unconstitutional)-
just curious.
thanks

 

[CMSC]

"ryrysmom was refering to another thread about making someone work and the constitutionality of it-from a couple days ago, I think. But you are right, this comment just added some confusion to this original post and I don't understand it either.."

You complain about me slamming you but then in my absence I am all you can talk about? Does my life somehow appeal to you? I did have a "situation" BUT that situation is over. The $50 a month was NOT getting to me, it was the way my entire case is being handled if you really must know. If you would like to get things straight maybe you should reread my posts, I know they are not that confusing because they are very consistant.


Atleast Grace gets what is going on! Lovingwife, I DO NOT get $50 a month, it was NOT set according to my ex's current job, it is a minimum guidline used for those who do not have a job and this way the state can keep a paper trail on the NCP and when they get a job the state will move to up it to a permanent order.

BUT I maybe moving to another state I would like to get a permanent order so that I don't have to come back here to go to court. I had been trying for months to get this permanent order. I never got a real answer as to why I could not get one with imputed income on my ex. He just recently got a job (he of course quit a few months later) and I was told that my support would possibly be raised to $170 a month. I DID NOT go to court to raise his support, just so you know for the record! I DO NOT expect him to pay but with a higher support amount I may actually have a slim chance of the state taking my case a little more seriously.

So is that clear enough for you or would you like me to repost all of my "situations" for you??? I am not going to argue with you. I am just a little tired of you attempting to track my every word and start a problem. If you don't like something I said because it "confused" you then move on or "email me privately so we can handle this like adults". It just really upsets me that you made me out to sound like I was trying to get more money from my ex when that is not what I was doing at all. Not all CP's are money hungry!


Sorry, Grace if I confused you with the whole unconstitutional thing. This is what I was told again yesterday when I called an attorney (not my county attorney) "It is considered by the courts to be unconstitutional to force anyone to obtain employment against their will, however, it is not unlawful to ask them to obtain income to meet their support obligation." If I understood it all I would not ask so many questions!

 

[Grace_Adler]

LOL!! That's ok.. I was only curious because I've heard somewhere.. don't remember where.. conflicting things on it being unconstitutional or not from other people's court orders and so forth. I looked up the General Assembley web site here to see if they could, I may have misunderstood what I was reading but it sounded like they could order you to get one here. I didn't mean to try and start a debate on here about it, so if I did I apologize. I was merely CURIOUS and trying to remember what was said on the other post and all.. I'm trying my best to put my thoughts into words. Anyway the point is you just cleared things up for me and answered my question.. thank you. You're not by yourself.. I don't understand it either.. if I did I wouldn't have been so curious.

 

[smh33]

lovingwife , you are close to the meaning but it is actually called 'slavery' and that was a stupid, idiotic comment on that poster's part, not to mention highly offensive to some probably and of course if that action was taken against that poster, it would be an entirely different story...suddenly it would not be fair,legal,etc...quite frankly if one does not pay support it's not GrandmaB's place to decide judgement or punishment and exactly what should we do do to the two parent families on welfare,etc.... You do not know people who are here...thier history,heritage or current situation so do everyone a favor and don't make anymore comments, especially about something you have never been a victim of....actually where was your last duty of involuntary servitude GrandmaB????????????????

 

[Grandma B]

Since the "involuntary servitude" statement was used in an attempt to find a court ruling requiring someone to work (not in slavery, but for wages) unconstitutional, I stand by my comment.

Quite frankly, smh33, I could care less whether your opinion differs.

As for this comment from you, "You do not know people who are here...thier history,heritage or current situation so do everyone a favor and don't make anymore comments, especially about something you have never been a victim of...." None of these comments have concerned any individual; they've been general in nature. As a matter of fact, YOU don't know anything about ME and listen to you!!

 

[hound dog]

Funny the courts will court order a man to work and pay support but I know alot of women who do not hold down jobs. I also know alot of women that goes to school. So the courts are bias a woman can marry and have other children and never work and it is ok but if a man marrys and have other children and do not work can be thrown in jail. That to me is unconstitual!
I think once divorce both parties should support there children. I mean what happens if the man marrys a wealthy woman and he decides to stay home with his new baby ? hey that will never happen b.c the courts want let it.
Confused tell me the justice in that! Please any insight will be greatly appreciated!

 

[karma1]

ryrysmom....

still trying for that "senior member" status, I see.
I already stated I misunderstood what was going on with you and the support amount and admitted to the mistake, but I see you neglected to mention that.
Nothing to say about where you stated I called you a cross-dresser ( I did not)?
I will agree to disagree with you from now on but remember, you posted that snotty comment about me and you not wanting to post your web page, remember?? Again, you can make comments like this but no one else can???
Have a great Sunday!

 

[CMSC]

Re: ryrysmom....

still trying for that "senior member" status, I see.
I already stated I misunderstood what was going on with you and the support amount and admitted to the mistake, but I see you neglected to mention that.
Nothing to say about where you stated I called you a cross-dresser ( I did not)?
I will agree to disagree with you from now on but remember, you posted that snotty comment about me and you not wanting to post your web page, remember?? Again, you can make comments like this but no one else can???
Have a great Sunday!

okay, for the record, my mistake, lovingwife did not call me across dresser, she implied it, half jokingly half seriously. but maybe I am one since I wear womans clothing and I am constantly being called a man??!!! hmmm...I guess you know more about me than I do!

Snotty I am not, honest I am (oh, I am sorry I forgot to put the Just Kidding behind the web page comment).


Thanks for being so concerned about my senior membership. I guess I am on here too much, terribly sorry, I will quite taking breaks from schooling, cleaning, changing diapers. If you are concerened about me being on here while I have children don't worry, they are on there computers right next to me and in between helping them with their advanced learning programs on line I resort to responding to you. Why I do this I don't know. But thanks again for your concern.


Grandma B, here is what I was told about getting someone to work per court order. Maybe you can clear it up for me, since you are such a smarty on our backwards law here!! When I called my case worker she said it is unconstitutional to force someone to work but she said that the wording of the order is all it would take to make it okay. I am thinking she said that we could not say in the order, "NCP is required by the court to obtain employment or they will be held in contempt." but she said we could reword it to say, "NCP will uphold their financial obligation to their children and will be help in contempt for not obtaining an income to meet the child's needs for support." It all sounds the same to me.


Grace, I wasn't trying to start a debate either, but looks as though it turned out that way.



hounddog, gee, a little biased aren't we? There are quite a few women out there paying support as well. But I get what you saying, I am just giving you a bad time!!

 

[Roscleo]

Hounddog

I agree the courts decisions are unconstitutional and biased. If a man did marry a wealthy woman and wanted to stay home the judge would laugh in his face and throw him in jail. I really do get sick of hearing people tell men "well you knew you had this obligation before you decided to marry and have another family and children" I certianly don't hear that told to women who whine because they want more money from their ex's and have gone on and had more children.

It is unconstitutional for the courts to tell a man he has to work so many hours a week, or that he must find a better paying job because that is what he had before he got laid off his old job. That is a fact period. It is slavery and involuntary servitude. It really doesn't matter if you are getting paid for working it is the fact that you are not voluntarily doing what the courts are making you do. That is involuntary servitude. I think the constitution is pretty clear.

It just goes to show the courts really don't care at all about the constitution and are not concerned with upholding it. They once again only are concerned with their wallets.

 

[CMSC]

Re: Hounddog

I agree the courts decisions are unconstitutional and biased. If a man did marry a wealthy woman and wanted to stay home the judge would laugh in his face and throw him in jail. I really do get sick of hearing people tell men "well you knew you had this obligation before you decided to marry and have another family and children" I certianly don't hear that told to women who whine because they want more money from their ex's and have gone on and had more children.

It is unconstitutional for the courts to tell a man he has to work so many hours a week, or that he must find a better paying job because that is what he had before he got laid off his old job. That is a fact period. It is slavery and involuntary servitude. It really doesn't matter if you are getting paid for working it is the fact that you are not voluntarily doing what the courts are making you do. That is involuntary servitude. I think the constitution is pretty clear.

It just goes to show the courts really don't care at all about the constitution and are not concerned with upholding it. They once again only are concerned with their wallets.

Roscleo you are right on with the courts, I think at times the only way they uphold the constitution is if it will benefit them at other times they tend to throw it out of the window by attempting to back it up with some other law or constitution. I also think that some CSE workers are forced into involuntary servitude because, I know for a fact, mine works at home for free because there is not a enough funding for her to get enough hours in at work to get everything done.