Challenging Constitutionality of Child Support

[AnswerMeNOW]

What is the name of your state?Ohio

Back in November, (uneducated) voters in Ohio -- along with several other states -- passed amendments to their constitution banning benefits to unwed couples. This issue passed because people continued to focus on the benefits issue between same-sex couples. Like I said, UNEDUCATED voters in Ohio because they failed to REALLY research what they were voting for.

In Ohio, the voters PASSED amending the constitution that contains this language:
Section 11. Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.

A few bipartisan organizations noted that passage of this would test the validity of adoptions, custody orders, wills, powers of attorney, and other legal arrangements between both same-sex and unmarried opposite-sex couples. But like I said, it passed because people continue to focus on the benefits for same-sex couples issue. Well, according to the Ohio Revised Code regarding child support, it's based on married couples who had children, but then divorced.

ORC Section 3109.05 (A)(1) In a divorce, dissolution of marriage, legal separation, or child support proceeding, the court may order either or both parents to support or help support their children, without regard to marital misconduct. In determining the amount reasonable or necessary for child support, including the medical needs of the child, the court shall comply with Chapter 3119. of the Revised Code

If an unmarried man or woman were to claim that paying (or about to pay) child support is unconstitutional, how would they go about it? See a family law lawyer or deal directly with CSEA? After all, there's got to be family law lawyers out there who already think the CS system is screwed up and would love to take this on (not to mention, make a name for themself).

While some of you on this forum might respond very emotionally over this post, I'd HIGHLY SUGGEST you think before you do. While some of you will be quick to say that this is an attempt to get out of paying child support, this IS a valid question. If laws like this are challenged -- and successful -- it could snowball into other states that passed legislation like Ohio did.

There is already a case in Ohio where someone is saying the domestic violence laws are unconstitutional based on its' language.

This is a clear example of people NOT knowing exactly what they're voting for.

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state?Ohio

Back in November, (uneducated) voters in Ohio -- along with several other states -- passed amendments to their constitution banning benefits to unwed couples. This issue passed because people continued to focus on the benefits issue between same-sex couples. Like I said, UNEDUCATED voters in Ohio because they failed to REALLY research what they were voting for.

In Ohio, the voters PASSED amending the constitution that contains this language:
Section 11. Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.

A few bipartisan organizations noted that passage of this would test the validity of adoptions, custody orders, wills, powers of attorney, and other legal arrangements between both same-sex and unmarried opposite-sex couples. But like I said, it passed because people continue to focus on the benefits for same-sex couples issue. Well, according to the Ohio Revised Code regarding child support, it's based on married couples who had children, but then divorced.

ORC Section 3109.05 (A)(1) In a divorce, dissolution of marriage, legal separation, or child support proceeding, the court may order either or both parents to support or help support their children, without regard to marital misconduct. In determining the amount reasonable or necessary for child support, including the medical needs of the child, the court shall comply with Chapter 3119. of the Revised Code

If an unmarried man or woman were to claim that paying (or about to pay) child support is unconstitutional, how would they go about it? See a family law lawyer or deal directly with CSEA? After all, there's got to be family law lawyers out there who already think the CS system is screwed up and would love to take this on (not to mention, make a name for themself).

While some of you on this forum might respond very emotionally over this post, I'd HIGHLY SUGGEST you think before you do. While some of you will be quick to say that this is an attempt to get out of paying child support, this IS a valid question. If laws like this are challenged -- and successful -- it could snowball into other states that passed legislation like Ohio did.

There is already a case in Ohio where someone is saying the domestic violence laws are unconstitutional based on its' language.

This is a clear example of people NOT knowing exactly what they're voting for.

What does this law have to do with the support of one's child? I think that you are seeing a connection here, or a legal similarility that doesn't exist.

Laura

 

[BL]

If an unmarried man or woman were to claim that paying (or about to pay) child support is unconstitutional, how would they go about it?

Write your districts representatives . The people chose them to represent their interest .

 

[AnswerMeNOW]

Laura (LdiJ)...I think you're missing the point of me posting this.

Because the voters of Ohio PASSED this amendment to the state's constitution, an unmarried man/woman who is paying (or ordered to pay) child support could make an argument that paying child support (because they were never married) is unconstitutional.

I would imagine if one wanted to fight this (because of the amendment being passed), they would have to get see a family law lawyer. Unless they could make their own argument to CSEA.

I don't think people are aware of the consequences of this amendment passing in states like Ohio.

 

[haiku]

What is the name of your state?Ohio


ORC Section 3109.05 (A)(1) In a divorce, dissolution of marriage, legal separation, or CHILD SUPPORT proceeding, the court may order either or both parents to support or help support their children, without regard to marital misconduct. In determining the amount reasonable or necessary for child support, including the medical needs of the child, the court shall comply with Chapter 3119. of the Revised Code

Bolding is mine.

Notice that child support proceeding is seperate from,divorce, dissolution of marriage, and legal seperation,preceeding.

each one denotes a different situation for court ordered support of a child. in court cases where parents are not married, it is JUST a child support hearing, not a divorce, disolution or legal seperationhearing involved.

Therefore, the recognition of what a legal marriage isor lack thereof inthe first place is covered and not applicable in Ohio in cases of child support.

 

[DOS2005]

Unconstitutional?

What is the name of your state?Ohio

Back in November, (uneducated) voters in Ohio -- along with several other states -- passed amendments to their constitution banning benefits to unwed couples. This issue passed because people continued to focus on the benefits issue between same-sex couples. Like I said, UNEDUCATED voters in Ohio because they failed to REALLY research what they were voting for.

In Ohio, the voters PASSED amending the constitution that contains this language:
Section 11. Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.

A few bipartisan organizations noted that passage of this would test the validity of adoptions, custody orders, wills, powers of attorney, and other legal arrangements between both same-sex and unmarried opposite-sex couples. But like I said, it passed because people continue to focus on the benefits for same-sex couples issue. Well, according to the Ohio Revised Code regarding child support, it's based on married couples who had children, but then divorced.

ORC Section 3109.05 (A)(1) In a divorce, dissolution of marriage, legal separation, or child support proceeding, the court may order either or both parents to support or help support their children, without regard to marital misconduct. In determining the amount reasonable or necessary for child support, including the medical needs of the child, the court shall comply with Chapter 3119. of the Revised Code

If an unmarried man or woman were to claim that paying (or about to pay) child support is unconstitutional, how would they go about it? See a family law lawyer or deal directly with CSEA? After all, there's got to be family law lawyers out there who already think the CS system is screwed up and would love to take this on (not to mention, make a name for themself).

While some of you on this forum might respond very emotionally over this post, I'd HIGHLY SUGGEST you think before you do. While some of you will be quick to say that this is an attempt to get out of paying child support, this IS a valid question. If laws like this are challenged -- and successful -- it could snowball into other states that passed legislation like Ohio did.

There is already a case in Ohio where someone is saying the domestic violence laws are unconstitutional based on its' language.

This is a clear example of people NOT knowing exactly what they're voting for.

I don't think child support would be something you can claim is unconstitutional. A child is protected no matter what. If you have a child without marriage you are still responsible for that child financially and you should want to stay a part of their lives both physically and financially. Just because a same sex marriage isn't legal in your state. I doubt that Child support could be deemed unconstitutional. Unmarried people, just using common sense need to still be responsible for the children they have made in such relationships.

 

[AnswerMeNOW]

It's obvious voters are NOT totally educated on what they are actually voting for. This is proof that if someone continues "driving home" a thought, people will start to believe it (just look at the Presidential Debates as proof).

Here in Ohio, proponents of this amendment continued to drive home the entire "same-sex benefits" issue of the amendment why they felt it needed to pass. The non-partisan groups were drowned out.

I think that in states where voters passed these amendments, it DOES have the potential of turning the system upside-down. Based on its' language ("This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage"), one could argue that since they weren't married, an order paying child support is unconstitutional and cite this very amendment.

The amendment further states that no legal status, such as a civil union, may be devised by state or local government that would carry the weight of marriage or confer any benefits or obligations of marriage on unmarried individuals. As such, it would revoke actions already taken by some cities and universities, and would test the validity of adoptions, custody orders, wills, powers of attorney, and other legal arrangements between both same-sex and unmarried opposite-sex couples.

Whether it would go through is another story.

And this is just order to pay child support. It could test the validity of adoptions, custody order, wills, powers of attorneys and other legal arrangements between both same-sex and unmarried couples. Like I mentioned earlier, it's already being challenged when it comes to domestic violence/protection laws. Depending on the ruling, it could snowball to other states like Ohio. It is being watched.

Don't get me wrong here. My point is someone COULD make a valid argument in their case. People in these states who passed this type of amendment should be very, very concerned about the people they voted into office. DOS, you mentioned the word "responsibility." Maybe people actually challenging the constitutionality of an unwed parent paying child support -- or domestic violence/protection and the such would hold those same elected officials who were so behind the passage of this -- holding THEM RESPONSIBLE!!!

Talk about a wake-up call.

 

[DOS2005]

It's obvious voters are NOT totally educated on what they are actually voting for. This is proof that if someone continues "driving home" a thought, people will start to believe it (just look at the Presidential Debates as proof).

Here in Ohio, proponents of this amendment continued to drive home the entire "same-sex benefits" issue of the amendment why they felt it needed to pass. The non-partisan groups were drowned out.

I think that in states where voters passed these amendments, it DOES have the potential of turning the system upside-down. Based on its' language ("This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage"), one could argue that since they weren't married, an order paying child support is unconstitutional and cite this very amendment.

The amendment further states that no legal status, such as a civil union, may be devised by state or local government that would carry the weight of marriage or confer any benefits or obligations of marriage on unmarried individuals. As such, it would revoke actions already taken by some cities and universities, and would test the validity of adoptions, custody orders, wills, powers of attorney, and other legal arrangements between both same-sex and unmarried opposite-sex couples.

Whether it would go through is another story.

And this is just order to pay child support. It could test the validity of adoptions, custody order, wills, powers of attorneys and other legal arrangements between both same-sex and unmarried couples. Like I mentioned earlier, it's already being challenged when it comes to domestic violence/protection laws. Depending on the ruling, it could snowball to other states like Ohio. It is being watched.

Don't get me wrong here. My point is someone COULD make a valid argument in their case. People in these states who passed this type of amendment should be very, very concerned about the people they voted into office. DOS, you mentioned the word "responsibility." Maybe people actually challenging the constitutionality of an unwed parent paying child support -- or domestic violence/protection and the such would hold those same elected officials who were so behind the passage of this -- holding THEM RESPONSIBLE!!!
Talk about a wake-up call.

I am responding the the sentences which are aimed towards me. A couple that makes a baby together, whether married or not are financially responsible for that child and there is nothing I can see unconstitutional or that even lines up with the Gay Marriage Laws or Unmarried Couples laws on the books. If I wasn't married to my husband (my child's dad) He still would be responsible to pay support for his child regardless. Marriage doesn't make the child. Two people did that. Marriage laws are to protect spouses financially and the property spouses hold together. It also has medical provisions and insurance privledges that Unmarried as well as Gay Couples don't usually have and one reason they are fighting so hard to make society believe they are just as entitled to such benefits. Again. These are separate issues. Child support isn't just put on those who are married but any hetero couples who have children together. Child support is for the CHILD although sadly, as in my case the parent who provides the support is kept from the child and the Ex spouse isn't even using the money for the child but on themselves.