Arraignment Upcoming

[Radia]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? TX


Usually it is the job of the accuser to bear the burden of proof, however I have been reading that in a Non Support case that the burden of proof falls on the accused to prove that they were unable to pay.

Is this true?

 

[Antigone*]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? TX


Usually it is the job of the accuser to bear the burden of proof, however I have been reading that in a Non Support case that the burden of proof falls on the accused to prove that they were unable to pay.

Is this true?

Well, I guess since the proof is the empty wallet, I'd say the burden of proof has been met.

 

[CSO286]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? TX


Usually it is the job of the accuser to bear the burden of proof, however I have been reading that in a Non Support case that the burden of proof falls on the accused to prove that they were unable to pay.

Is this true?

Well quite simply, it's already a fact that the payor failed to the make the payments, not you're arguing why you shouldn't be jailed for it (or fined, or otherwise sanctioned.)

 

[Radia]

Well, I guess since the proof is the empty wallet, I'd say the burden of proof has been met.

Isnt there something more to the idea of having a job? That the withholding orders that were sent out (41 of them, I got copies) to employers, money was withheld from a check, and in some cases two, and then HE would quit or be fired.

That he never filed his income taxes because that money would come to me? He choose to not see the money himself in order to make sure I didnt see it either.

I now have three fellow employees that are willing to testify that he worked with them and were paid under the table.

I would call the reason his wallet is empty his own, and of his own choice. Does that not apply, is it a simple "no money no problem" situation?

 

[Radia]

Court today and for the first time, he actually showed up.

When asked if he wanted a court appointed attorney he answered

No that he would hire one, but he is claiming that he does not have the money to pay his support.

Will a judge take that into consideration during the trial, that he couldn't afford child support for over a year, but can afford an attorney.

I think it may just be a possible stunt to drag things out and that he will show up in Jan telling the court that he couldn't find one he could afford and that he needs one appointed, resulting in another reset.

He was also put on "supervision" until the trial, and was sent to the county probation office to find out the terms of his supervision. Would one of these be paying his support? Is the information public information?