my ex wife is on permanent ssi and...

[CSO286]

The court does not need to have the expectation that they will work. It only needs to order support be paid and enforce noncompliance with a contempt finding.

Except that they make the support order with a proper understanding of the parties' financials as well as their ability to pay support as ordered.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Except that they make the support order with a proper understanding of the parties' financials as well as their ability to pay support as ordered.

True. They have a good sense of the entire picture, including the childs living conditions.

 

[stealth2]

Actually, it is only a group of "friends" who are seniors here, who use such media to stay in touch with each other. I assume you are friended there also. I don't waste my time with it. That is a fact about the disabled, they are usually able to do something. The criteria is that they are not consistently able to earn over $1000 per month. So a small CS order can be a no brainer for some, if they chose to seek appropriate part time employment. All a particular court is doing is exercising their judicial discretion ascertaining the possibility to do so exists. BTW my so called "crusading" may come from the fact that I have been disabled for over 22 years and have earned a very high full-time income most of them. I can't tell you how many disability recipients I have met, that have abilities to function far beyond those I possess.

Stop babbling nonsense, RoadKill.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Stop babbling nonsense, RoadKill.

Strike a nerve? Relax, it is not illegal to live vicariously through Facebook.

 

[EnforceSupport]

The court can require she pay support. The court cannot require attachment of her SSI. You figure out how she will avoid being held in contempt. As I said earlier "The court might expect her to work 10 hours a week to come up with this money." The could also expect her to grow a money tree or sell her body. The bottom line is the court can order it, without worrying about how she is going to pay it.

Little late to this party (not unusual for me), but, OHRoadwarrior, to answer your question "You figure out how she will avoid being held in contempt.", the answer is, contempt will be almost impossible under the circumstances you've described because the element of 'ability to comply', which normally is on the moving party to prove, but in support cases often is usually shifted back to the obligor to contest as an affirmative defense, WON'T shift in this case because the court is imputing income - i.e. the ability to work 10 hours (under your scenario.) Therefore, I believe the creditor will, in this case, still have the burden of proof (not just on the usual elements of contempt), but also on the element of proving ability to comply. (which, in all likelihood, would have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.) With a low wage earner, or, a non-existent one as here, that's very difficult. And, in the unlikely event that she does prevail and obtains a finding of guilt, do you really think they're going to toss an SSDI/SSI recipient in jail? That doesn't happen too often with the worst offenders.

 

[stealth2]

Little late to this party (not unusual for me), but, OHRoadwarrior, to answer your question "You figure out how she will avoid being held in contempt.", the answer is, contempt will be almost impossible under the circumstances you've described because the element of 'ability to comply', which normally is on the moving party to prove, but in support cases often is usually shifted back to the obligor to contest as an affirmative defense, WON'T shift in this case because the court is imputing income - i.e. the ability to work 10 hours (under your scenario.) Therefore, I believe the creditor will, in this case, still have the burden of proof (not just on the usual elements of contempt), but also on the element of proving ability to comply. (which, in all likelihood, would have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.) With a low wage earner, or, a non-existent one as here, that's very difficult. And, in the unlikely event that she does prevail and obtains a finding of guilt, do you really think they're going to toss an SSDI/SSI recipient in jail? That doesn't happen too often with the worst offenders.

ES... You're not around often enough to know that Roadkill is rarely right.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

ES... You're not around often enough to know that Roadkill is rarely right.

You always make comments you cannot back up Stealth2. Don't tell me about it EnforceSupport. Take it up with the judges who order it. They can and do order it. They can find an SSI recipient in contempt. Can't change reality. Ability to comply is no different than it was at the time the judge orders the support to be paid. It is not my position to make those decisions, nor is it yours, it is the judges. If anyone doubts it can happen, ask SandyClaus, we had a poster in another forum in that exact situation asking advice about a month ago.

 

[EnforceSupport]

You always make comments you cannot back up Stealth2. Don't tell me about it EnforceSupport. Take it up with the judges who order it. They can and do order it. They can find an SSI recipient in contempt. Can't change reality. Ability to comply is no different than it was at the time the judge orders the support to be paid. It is not my position to make those decisions, nor is it yours, it is the judges. If anyone doubts it can happen, ask SandyClaus, we had a poster in another forum in that exact situation asking advice about a month ago.

Ok, then, I stand corrected. (Of course, you're wrong, but, you're not wanting to cite law or debate in a logical manner - so, I'm not going to waste anymore time.)

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Ok, then, I stand corrected. (Of course, you're wrong, but, you're not wanting to cite law or debate in a logical manner - so, I'm not going to waste anymore time.)

I have not refused to debate. You are the one claiming it not to be possible. Stop peeing in the wind and back up your claim or shut up. We have heard your OPINION. Here is a case that if you want to assume, by omission, supports my contentions. They reversed and remanded on the basis that CS could not be factored considering SSI. They did not rule on the basis of it being illegal as a matter of course to asses support based on state law. This is exactly what I was saying can happen. The second case is more specific on the issue. It simply holds that a court cannot hold an SSI recipient in contempt if they do not have the ability to pay, though it can order them to pay. The argument is then opened up that if they win the lottery or come into other funds, they can be made to pay support with it. If in the future, they go off of SSI, the arrearage will be waiting for them.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6456093337751851308&q=+SSI+recipient+ordered+to+pay+child+support&hl=en&as_sdt=2,36

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=300862616783874074&q=+SSI+recipient+ordered+to+pay+child+support&hl=en&as_sdt=2,36

 

[stealth2]

You always make comments you cannot back up Stealth2.

All anyone need do is read your posts to see how often you are wrong.

 

[Proserpina]

. Stop peeing in the wind and back up your claim or shut up.

Well.

That is certainly ironic. Coming from you, and all.

 

[Proserpina]

Ok, then, I stand corrected. (Of course, you're wrong, but, you're not wanting to cite law or debate in a logical manner - so, I'm not going to waste anymore time.)

I'd "like" this if I could get the "like" function to work.

Le sigh!

 

[stealth2]

I'd "like" this if I could get the "like" function to work.

Le sigh!

Liked it for you.

 

[Proserpina]

Liked it for you.

Thank you kindly!

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

All anyone need do is read your posts to see how often you are wrong.

You always say that, yet you have no basis other than your own twisted reality. Perhaps you should re-read the purpose of this forum. Trolling, is not in the mission statement. It just kills you that I am correct and not in your little clique.