Arrears Payments

[Grandma B]

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!

Hey, guy, I agree. I am a firm believer that CPs have no right to stay home and live on child support or public assistance. They have as much obligation to their children as NCPs. Now, if a CP remarries and their spouse is willing to support them and provide their portion of the costs of the children, that's okay, and it would be okay if a NCP's new spouse wanted to pay the child support for their partner so he/she could stay home. Do remember, though, not ALL NCPs are men.

 

[Lil Miss Smarty Panties]

reply to houndog

I know your point all too well. Lets say a man has a very stressful job, both physically and mentally, but makes good money at it. If he wanted to take a less stressful job making a little less but eventually would the have the opportunity to advance in that job to make more money, he would still have to pay child support in the amount it was figured for his higher paying job. Soooo if he decides to take the less stressful job making less money he runs the risk of falling behind on c/s. He has no choice but to stay with the higher paying job just to satisfy the courts. The custodial parent can be voluntarily under employed, working a part time job making little more than minimum wage, so she can still get government benefits. Lets say she (the cp) has the opportunity to work a job where she would make more money than the ncp but refuses to. The courts can ignore this, and they can choose not to calculate it into the child support order what her earnings could be if she worked full time to her full potential. The man doesn't have this option. He has to work to his full potential and pay more support because she refuses to work to HER full potential. How can this be fair? 1 answer, its not.

I know that the court wants to make sure that c/s is paid, and that is why a ncp cannot refuse to work to his full potential, i.e. quitting a job to avoid paying support or quitting a high paying job to work at McDonalds to pay less support. But I think a majority of ncp's don't mind paying their support, they just want it to be fair. I know of one extreme case where the man was living with a woman, she became pregnant, he gives child his last name and has to sign paternity affadavit at hospital to do this. child has medical problems and has extensive tests done. child has rh negative blood and can't possibly be the mans son. The parents split up, child support is demanded. He won't pay support for the child, avoids working. Goes to jail. He has no choice now. Because he signed the paternity affidavit this child is legally his. Of course at the time he thought it was. Now he pays to support a child that isn't his, the bio Father pays nothing but sees his child daily, the legal father has no visitation but pays to support this child. and the mother gets rewarded for lying and being a tramp by our court system.

 

[karma1]

CSE workers are there by choice..

and working in that line of work by choice, so it is not involuntary servitude-no court is telling that CSE worker to be employed in this capacity.
If I follow this line of thinking, then, being a teacher and putting in between 8-10 hrs a day plus weekend time (not always but during most weeks), then I am experiencing involuntary servitude? I didn't even mention working through recess and lunch breaks, either.
My point is, I am not being told by a court I have to do this-(put in the extra time and not being compensated for it)-it is the nature of my profession and I knew that before getting my credential.
A NCP being told they have to work in a certain wage earning capacity is the debate-not when someone chooses to work in a certain profession and takes on added responsibility and is not compensated for it.
glad we are back to the discussion and I do think this "debate" is valuable from all points of view!

 

[Grandma B]

There is a forum on these boards dealing with the U.S. Supreme Court and the Constitution.

Personally, I don't see requiring a person to hold a job as forcing them into slavery or involuntary servitude. I think the great men who wrote that document were dealing with slavery, not employment. Is it a requirement of parole that the parolee get a job?

 

[Roscleo]

There is a forum on these boards dealing with the U.S. Supreme Court and the Constitution.

Personally, I don't see requiring a person to hold a job as forcing them into slavery or involuntary servitude. I think the great men who wrote that document were dealing with slavery, not employment. Is it a requirement of parole that the parolee get a job?

Yes there is a forum for the constitution and the Supreme court on these board but this is also a child support issue and would probably be better answered by people who deal with the courts in child support issues.

Forcing someone to work or to work at a certain wage paying job or work so many hours a week in involutary servitude

Involuntary: 1 done contrary to or without choice 2. compulsory 3. Not subject to control by the will.

Servitude: Slavery, bondage.

Slavery: 1. wearisome drudgery

Not sure what you are saying regarding the parole thing..Maybe I am just really slow today..

 

[Grandma B]

This might be related to a family law topic, but I don't think there are any Constitutional scholars on board. Anyone? Anyone?

 

[Roscleo]

This whole issue is the consitutionality of courts enforcing cs payments and guidelines. The constitution which has been quoted quite a few times is very clear regarding this issue. The courts are wrong. We can read and don't need a scholar to explain english to us.

If this whole issue bothers you so much, there is no law requiring you to get involved in it, that would be involuntary servitude huh?

 

[Roscleo]

Even the courts themselves say it is unconstitutional

They just won't uphold their own decisions

The Court looked to the meaning of the Thirteenth Amendment in
interpreting two enforcement statutes, one prohibiting conspiracy to
interfere with exercise or enjoyment of constitutional rights,\33\ the
other prohibiting the holding of a person in a condition of involuntary
servitude.\34\ For purposes of prosecution under these authorities, the
Court held, ``the term `involuntary servitude' necessarily means a
condition of servitude in which the victim is forced to work for the
defendant by the use or threat of physical restraint or physical injury,
or by the use or threat of coercion through law or the legal
process.''\35\

\33\18 U.S.C. Sec. 241.
\34\18 U.S.C. Sec. 1584.

 

[smh33]

GrandmaB...try looking up liberty and the Constitution while your at it. 'Involuntary servitude' is not always just a reference to 'slavery', but here again you assume to know many things. History holds many cases of involuntary servitude besides the single name position of 'slavery', I just thought that would be the most simple definition you would be able to understand. You might want to see the Declaration of Independence and research the issue of fundamental rights here and around the world. You might also want to research the history of custody and child support, it's origin...and please make the effort to go as far back as English Common Law. Your statement was a statement, not an inquiry and regardless it's meaning, intention is not consider by most of the world humane...and again I stress, should you find yourself not able to pay suddenly that fate would not be appropriate. I do not need to know your person or heritage, in the past and now you more than confirm your smallness and disregard for others. Your an idiot as you cannot and do not recognize your own mistakes, much less do you seem to care...oh thats right you already stated you don't, again too careless to bother to ask the offense or nature. Isn't that what you call American arrogance? I wonder what other sites would be interested in your little opinion....demanding labor with wage and involuntary servitude are two entirely different things, it might be wise for you to figure that out and what your country fought and stands for....

 

[Grandma B]

From a previous post by smh33: "I do not pass judgement on anybody..."

And another: "Your an idiot as you cannot and do not recognize your own mistakes, much less do you seem to care...oh thats right you already stated you don't, again too careless to bother to ask the offense or nature"

My statement about not caring had nothing to do with alleged mistakes--it was "Quite frankly, smh33, I could care less whether your opinion differs."

BTW, I also don't care if you call me an idiot, but your statement should have read, "You're an idiot . . ."; not "Your an idiot . . ."

As usual, your syntax boggles the mind! I'm still not quite sure what your statement, "too careless to bother to ask the offense or nature" is all about.

Don't bother with a response--I won't be reading or responding.

 

[CMSC]

From a previous post by smh33: "I do not pass judgement on anybody..."

And another: "Your an idiot as you cannot and do not recognize your own mistakes, much less do you seem to care...oh thats right you already stated you don't, again too careless to bother to ask the offense or nature"

My statement about not caring had nothing to do with alleged mistakes--it was "Quite frankly, smh33, I could care less whether your opinion differs."

BTW, I also don't care if you call me an idiot, but your statement should have read, "You're an idiot . . ."; not "Your an idiot . . ."

As usual, your syntax boggles the mind! I'm still not quite sure what your statement, "too careless to bother to ask the offense or nature" is all about.

Don't bother with a response--I won't be reading or responding.

OMG! How can anyone not love GrandmaB???

 

[CMSC]

Re: CSE workers are there by choice..

and working in that line of work by choice, so it is not involuntary servitude-no court is telling that CSE worker to be employed in this capacity.

for goodness sakes lady! if I say the sky is blue would you like to argue that also????

 

[CMSC]

There is a forum on these boards dealing with the U.S. Supreme Court and the Constitution.

Personally, I don't see requiring a person to hold a job as forcing them into slavery or involuntary servitude. I think the great men who wrote that document were dealing with slavery, not employment. Is it a requirement of parole that the parolee get a job?

Hey grandma B this is a point a brought up to my case worker because in my ex's probation papers it states that if he does not provide for his family or obtain suitable employment it is a violation of probation. I realize parole is a little different but I believe they have the same rule. I agree with you that not paying child support is a crime and the courts prove it is a crime everyday! I really don't see how it is unconstitutional to require someone to provide for children as agreed to in a court order so if that persons punishment for failure to comply is either jail or a job I would hope the NCP would choose the job!! I can't believe I started a huge debate! All I was trying to do was make get people thinking about how unconstitutional it should be to make someone get a job but it is okay to make a child (who can't consent) take a DNA test. I know there are good reasons for the DNA test I was just curious about it.

 

[hound dog]

How can the courts order anyone to get a job with a higher wage and more hours. Are they going to supply this job to them. How can they expect that you know higher paying jobs are not as accesiable as they were a year or two years ago. I think it is wrong if a person loses their jobs then they should base child support on what they can get not what the CP or Judge think they can get. That is ridculous.
Now how can they put someone in jail for not supporting their children. I mean if they which they are they need to start at the welfare line b.c they are not supporting their children we are the tax payors. So how can they say a man is not paying his support is in violation so throw him in jail but yet some women ( not all) keep on having babies and keep getting benefits so why is she not thrown in jail??????????? I am confused you know the bottom line is the man is only looked at as money the Gov't got tired of forking the bill out so they passed it on rather it is fair or not and boy do we all know it is not fair.
Bottom line is we cannot raise or see or pay for our children unless we go through a lawyer a judge and boo coodles of money. You know satistics say that majority of men who do not pay their support is b.c they do hav eit or it is to high. See child support is like any other bill you pay it if you have it. There is not relief for anything job loss , injury, illness......Oh sure you say oh you can take it back to court which again takes $$$$$$$$ Its funny if you get a divorce when the child is five the courts expect you to pay w/o fail for the next fiftenn years......like you never going to fall on hard times............tell me the fairness........

 

[karma1]

Not arguing....

just trying to follow the "conversation" on here.
Why so defensive??
Did you even understand my point (as I understood yours and commented about it)?
Having a decent debate is healthy-if we were to be talking in person and you gave that example of the CSE officer as being involuntary servitude-my response would be the same-question, not argue, and get further conversation going....so, from what I gather, you want to make statements (or in this instance, give an example) and that's it-no one can comment or continue with the conversation? This leads me to believe I am "conversing" with someone that is quite capable of carrying on the "conversation" all by themselves...not a slam, just a logical conclusion drawn.
And to answer your question-nope, I do not love Grandmab-a faceless name on the internet-okay, that was a little slam, but you asked....I respect people who can carry on a "conversation" or at least defend their own statements, though...she does that very well...