this would probably be a question for IAAL
about the constitutionality of making someone work?
this was all brought up by ryrysmom on 6/10 under sbaldwins post which you were a part of too, if I recall.
ryrysmom (a quick recap) said she was told by her CSE office that they cannot make a person work-but I am confused with her whole reply as her support is set at 50$ a month, currently, and I do believe she is getting that amount but wants more. I am thinking this may be a question of not making someone work, but making someone get a better paying job-therefore allowing more money to go towards support. See what I am getting at here? Obviously, that 50$ a month is coming from somewhere (and no, I do not think that is anywhere near being fair), so, one would assume it is from employment. I am just going by what I have read regarding this and am trying to make sense of it, too. If is goes up to 170$ , which she is expecting, then that money, too, has to come from somewhere, right? I may be reading more into this but I think it is a case of thinking and wanting the NCP to work at a better job and the CSE telling her that that part is unconstitutional-
of course, I am expecting all kinds of slams for this, (not from you Grace) but this is what I can see from reading what is posted and some of the inconsistencies I mentioned earlier.
I guess in her case, the courts will decide what can and cannot be done-
I am wondering about the constitutionality of all of this as well, as DH's papers specifically state he had to bring his hours up to 40 a week (which he has)-according to ryrysmom, and what she has been told, this is not lawful.
try posting this as a new thread-maybe IAAL will respond then?