Incarceration considered "nonvoluntary" reduction of income

[bononos again]

NCP wellness - kiddo wellnes. Is that simple.

Because while in jail he can not work and pay CS.

Can you post a link for this program, please? Thank you.

Here is a basic news link on a jail work release program that was approved. (Attn to 5th paragraph from bottom). I am still looking for a link to the child support specific program.
County council approves putting jail inmates to work

 

[bononos again]

Office of the Sheriff - Allegany County Maryland

Programs & services section

 

[Proserpina]

Thanks for the links, bononos

 

[davidmcbeth3]

As usual, david, it's been a complete pleasure having you visit FA and spout your ideas. Thank you for revealing your moronicity.

You have a kid and cannot provide for it??? Hummmm .. whose fault is that? Viva La 1st Amendment ! I normally don't post on family issues ... they are too volatile issues

 

[Proserpina]

You have a kid and cannot provide for it??? Hummmm .. whose fault is that? Viva La 1st Amendment ! I normally don't post on family issues ... they are too volatile issues

Do you understand the difference between cannot and will not?

Do you get how that works?

 

[LdiJ]

I don't see any problem with the law.

Anybody who depends on CS to actually take care of their kid should not have had the kid to begin with. What if the other parent dies?

If the other parent dies, then in most cases anyway, there are social security survivor's benefits. In some rare instances those benefits are actually greater than child support.

However, I actually don't disagree with you that a parent should not count on child support, but only because those deadbeats who are determined not to pay will somehow manage to avoid it, no matter what their consequences are, and no matter how much they tank their own lives in the process.

I waffle on the issue of incarcerated parents. Most of them end up with only marginal employablity after they are released, so sometimes its a truly no win situation if they end up with massive arrearages.

 

[bononos again]

Here is the link to the article regarding development of the support work release facility. it was developed, I just can't seem to find it online.
Putting deadbeat dads to work

 

[QueenOfTheHill]

My son just went to court over this very issue in Indiana. NCP served a year,filed for that period to be forgiven. However,she was only granted from the date of her filing. Unfortunately for her,she served 10 months before she filed,so only saved herself 2 months worth of CS arrears.

 

[bononos again]

Just to clarify, I think there may be a bit of confusion.
In my situation, the ex was arrested for 4 felony drug charges, so, is not in for nonpayment necessarily, but did have a CS warrant at the time of arrest.
I DO NOT rely on CS, obviously, since I really never now do I feel it right that others would rely on it.
My issue is that of course 4 years ago, incarceration was considered "voluntary" and CS could not be postponed or reduced. The "choice" to do illegal acts is "voluntary" and those parents who are incarcerated for that should most definately be made to gather the arrears and owe that debt, why should they get a break? It's not deserved. They shirk their parenting responsibilities by choosing to do illegal acts then get a free ticket to shirk financial responsibility.

 

[NellieBly]

If the other parent dies, then in most cases anyway, there are social security survivor's benefits. In some rare instances those benefits are actually greater than child support.

My son is handicapped and when his dad retired, my son's Social Security benefits were way more than the child support.

 

[Alex1176]

NCP wellness does not equate to kiddo wellness.

According to the states guidlines, if the NCP earns more, so the CP gets more money from him.

NCP isn't paying anyway...and again, will likely have had several chances to rectify the situation.


Alex, what would your solution be?

My solution will not eliminate the problem, but will reduce it: The state will introduce a minimum payment, that will cover the state aid for the child. If the state aid is 500$, so the NCP needs to cover this amount. This act will reduce the numbers of the jailed NCP with imputed income that not exist in the real life.
While the NCP is in jail, the arrears will stop. Why? Because you can not cut somebody arm, and then order him to play a piano. After the NCP will get out of jail, he needs to find a way to cover this minimum payment. He can not do it? The state should create a program of public work for those people (higway cleaning, etc..

 

[mistoffolees]

According to the states guidlines, if the NCP earns more, so the CP gets more money from him.

What's so unreasonable about that?

My solution will not eliminate the problem, but will reduce it: The state will introduce a minimum payment, that will cover the state aid for the child. If the state aid is 500$, so the NCP needs to cover this amount. This act will reduce the numbers of the jailed NCP with imputed income that not exist in the real life.

That proposal has a number of massive flaws:
1. Some people can't even afford the state aid amount (picture, for example, a person who is handicapped and can't work). Making everyone pay the same amount is an undue burden on those who work at minimum wage or can't work

2. Some people SHOULD be paying more. You're suggesting that if Bill and Melinda Gates break up and she gets custody that he should be paying the same amount as a Walmart greeter. Sorry, but those kids have an entirely different lifestyle - and it's not fair to punish them because the parents break up

3. CS is for the child, not the parents. If you arbitrarily stop CS when a person is in jail, who's going to feed the kid? Sure, the state could step in, but that would provide only minimal sustenance - AND I don't like making the welfare state any stronger than it is.

4. Some people in jail can easily afford to pay their CS, so there's no reason to stop it. Granted, they will have to take it from their savings rather than from income, but that's just too bad - if they hadn't landed themselves in jail, they'd still have an income.

 

[neopandora]

Just to clarify, I think there may be a bit of confusion.
In my situation, the ex was arrested for 4 felony drug charges, so, is not in for nonpayment necessarily, but did have a CS warrant at the time of arrest.
I DO NOT rely on CS, obviously, since I really never now do I feel it right that others would rely on it.
My issue is that of course 4 years ago, incarceration was considered "voluntary" and CS could not be postponed or reduced. The "choice" to do illegal acts is "voluntary" and those parents who are incarcerated for that should most definately be made to gather the arrears and owe that debt, why should they get a break? It's not deserved. They shirk their parenting responsibilities by choosing to do illegal acts then get a free ticket to shirk financial responsibility.

You may want to also check and see if it is considered involuntary for prison time and not for jail time. Generally, a sentence 1 year or more is served in prison and 11 months 29 days or less is served in jail. Lots of times jail time can involve work for money. Prison, not so much. And, it's usually based on actual time served and not time sentenced.

If your sentence is, let's say, 3 years in prison, if it's your first prison sentence and you are not in a habitual or career criminal offender range, you would probably only serve 1 year of that. Then, you take off any jail time already served waiting for bond, held at all,etc. and the actual time served could be extremely minimal.

Also, if he has not been found guilty and sentenced to prison, it's quite likely that he may plea it down to a misdeameanor, or plea down the charges so that jail or prison time is minimal. A good attorney and a fairly clean drug arrest record might knock it down to little or no jail time (and no prison) and a couple of years of community corrections (kinda known as parole plus). In which case you might be more likely to get child support as a condition of community corrections would be to have a job, pay cs, etc.

 

[Alex1176]

What's so unreasonable about that?
.

That was my point. It's very reasonable.

That proposal has a number of massive flaws:
1. Some people can't even afford the state aid amount (picture, for example, a person who is handicapped and can't work). Making everyone pay the same amount is an undue burden on those who work at minimum wage or can't work

2. Some people SHOULD be paying more. You're suggesting that if Bill and Melinda Gates break up and she gets custody that he should be paying the same amount as a Walmart greeter. Sorry, but those kids have an entirely different lifestyle - and it's not fair to punish them because the parents break up

3. CS is for the child, not the parents. If you arbitrarily stop CS when a person is in jail, who's going to feed the kid? Sure, the state could step in, but that would provide only minimal sustenance - AND I don't like making the welfare state any stronger than it is.

4. Some people in jail can easily afford to pay their CS, so there's no reason to stop it. Granted, they will have to take it from their savings rather than from income, but that's just too bad - if they hadn't landed themselves in jail, they'd still have an income.

1. We are talking about those who can pay it. Not about handicapped.
2. All due respect, I don't want to spend my very hard earned tax money on holding people in jail because some children needs to keep their high life style, life style that I can not afford for my children, for example.
3. Sometime you just have no choise. When the state put this person in jail, we are going to pay not only for the child, but also for the NCP, because jail cost money, a lot of money.
4. We are talking here about maybe 1%. Usualy those guys in jail are coming from the poorest and uneducated social groups of USA.

 

[Proserpina]

Alex, you must bear in mind two things here (I think they were mentioned earlier but I'm not sure if you read the post or not):

1. Jail is generally a last resort. The obliging parent will have had at least a few chances to at least show the court that they're willing to pay something or at least try to modify the current order.

2. People who undergo involuntary loss or reduction of income are not uncommonly awarded a downwards modification - if they request it.


The parent, for example, who is laid off from work can file to modify (at least temporarily). If s/he does so, there's a better-than-good chance that they'll get the modification.

It's the repeated willful nonpayment which tends to land people in jail.