Points to ponder

[frylover]

BCB, I'd be curious to see them both addressed.

I promise I'm not trying to pick a fight, either (although you probably like it, the natue of your profession is to fight ). But how can you say an NCP who is denied access to his child over and over again at the mere whims of the CP is NOT getting screwed? By the CP, certainly, but also by the courts that just slap them on the wrist and tell them "now be nice". How can you say that is "everything working out like it should"? You saythat Texas enforces visitation, and I have to believe you, but maybe not all states are quite as efficient (Take LA, for example. The ONLY thing LA is efficient at is.....well, nothing, actually. We're not too efficient at ANYTHING unless you count making the top of every "worst" list there is )

I think what so many people are getting at here is that the law appears to be most interested in the financial bottom line. (notice I said "appears"--I certainly could be wrong and that is my disclaimer!) Realistic? Sure it is. Fair? It sure doesn't seem like it. And I guess one expects the law to be fair to everyone, not just when it's monetarily profitable.

Also, let me say that I would never presume to say that the people you mentioned should NOT have gotten custody. One of the many reasons that it turns my stomach to think of my in-laws raising my children is that they are SO racist.

Lastly, I'm a little confused about something here. Did I understand correctly that a CP can commit welfare fraud and the NCP has to pay the money back? Why is THAT fair and equitable? I must have misunderstood that part

 

[karma1]

It happened with my brother...

(frylover)-long story short-
Actually, biomom collected welfare, child support and ssi for years-(this was legit-his support paid back welfare and I think she got like 100$ for support out of that)-
Anyway, custody established last August and due to just not being able to take off work and get to CSE, brother went in October to stop his support payments.
Here's where the fraud came in-biomom, the minute official custody was given to biodad, was supposed to, by CSE and welfare "rules", notify both she did not have child living with her. She collected both welfare and support monies for 2 months- (ssi was another matter since she was actually making cash money on the side and never told them).
Now, supposedly, both agencies were to "talk" to each other and start some legal action against her-and I think that is the major problem with these agencies-they do not communicate with each other or share info. Well, here is is a year later and nothing has been done.
I would like to ad that my brother has not filed to collect support from biomom or asked her to help out in anyway-he never wanted (or wants) money issues to come between mom and daughter-he got a better paying job and pays for everything (including transportation for visitation and all medical).
just personal fyi for ya~

 

[Boxcarbill]

[originally posted by frylover [/I]
BCB, I'd be curious to see them both addressed.

I promise I'm not trying to pick a fight, either (although you probably like it, the natue of your profession is to fight ).

My response:

Actually if you have read my posts, you would know that I don't like to engage in meaningless round robin arguments; nor will I. I simply don't respond. Education is beneficial; arguments which result in a binding judgment at the conclusion of the evidence and arguments of counsel are beneficial; but when the purpose is merely to argue for sake argument, it is waste of time.

_________________________________________________

But how can you say an NCP who is denied access to his child over and over again at the mere whims of the CP is NOT getting screwed?

My response:

Now, this statement is a perfect example of argument for the sake of argument and is a waste of time. The reason: It is the straw man argument and it is a logical fallacy. The straw man argument occurs when one misrepresent someone else's position so that the misrepresentation can be attacked more easily. Then they knock down that misrepresented position and conclude that the original position has been demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have been made.

________________________________________________

By the CP, certainly, but also by the courts that just slap them on the wrist and tell them "now be nice". How can you say that is "everything working out like it should"?

My response:

I have previously addressed in this thread the technical problems with contempt when jail time is sought, whether the contempt action is for child support or visitation. I see no reason to repeat myself.

___________________________________________________

You say that Texas enforces visitation, and I have to believe you, but maybe not all states are quite as efficient (Take LA, for example. The ONLY thing LA is efficient at is.....well, nothing, actually. We're not to efficient at ANYTHING unless you count making the top of every "worst" list there is )

My response:

I cannot address what does or does not happen in courts in other places. The question which you askd was directed to what my actual experience has been and I answered that question and I did so honestly. I stand by it.

__________________________________________________

I think what so many people are getting at here is that the law appears to be most interested in the financial bottom line. (notice I said "appears"--I certainly could be wrong and that is my disclaimer!) Realistic? Sure it is. Fair? It sure doesn't seem like it. And I guess one expects the law to be fair to everyone, not just when it's monetarily profitable.

My response:

When one's own ox is the one being gored, they think it is unfair. I also addressed this perception in another post in this thread. People on this forum have very limited knowledge of any actual cases other than their own. That is, at the very most they have set in the courtroom and heard the entire evidence from both sides on fewer than a half dozen cases and in most instances, they have done so in far fewer cases than a half dozen. So they make broad and sweeping generalization about what the law does and does not do on nothing more that their own personal case and the hearsay descriptions of other's and they filter out the hearsay descriptions of cases that conflict with their own situation and beliefs and accept at face value the description of the cases that support their prior opinion.

But I have seen hundreds of cases and it is pure and simple bullsh#t to suggest that the court is motivated by a financial interest in its ruling. In fact, I find it extraordinarily ignorant. Parties in most cases and by "most cases" I do mean close to 90 percent or higher of both the cp and the ncp or far more interested in the money issues than they are in the children and it shows damn near every time they open their mouths. Each blames the other for being after the money. Money, money, money. It is the judge who is interested in the best interest of the child--and some attorneys. It is the parties for the most part who are more interested in venting their contempt for each other than they are in anything other than the money--and the desire to continue to vent continue in the courtroom even after they have won their case. This so damn important to them, they loose sight of everything but the opportunity to get in one more bash before leaving. Hell, I make sure that me an my client catch a different elevator just so I don't have to listen to any more drivel than I have to. Of course, my client keeps bending me ear in bashing the other party until I can escape to my car.

They get on these boards and talk about the children but look at how much time is spent on "she doesn't spend the child support on the children." "Every time I get a cent, she gets it." "I am cp of the children but she doesn't pay child support." "I have custody of the children but because she sits on her butt, she only pays a pittance but if the table were turned, I be paying out the butt." "He hasn't paid child support in "x" period of time, can I terminate his parental rights?" " If I surrender my parental rights, can I stop paying child support." "Why should I pay child support on a child that I just found out is not mine. ( Never mind that the child thinks he is mine. We're talking money, here!" "I think it is shame that these men who should have to pay child support on a child that is not their biological child." Now, what was that you were saying about the court's financial motivation and the purity of heart and motivation regarding the child of the litigant! Tell it to someone who doesn't know the difference.

_________________________________________________

Also, let me say that I would never presume to say that the people you mentioned should NOT have gotten custody. One of the many reasons that it turns my stomach to think of my in-laws raising my children is that they are SO racist.

Lastly, I'm a little confused about something here. Did I understand correctly that a CP can commit welfare fraud and the NCP has to pay the money back? Why is THAT fair and equitable? I must have misunderstood that part

My response:

I wouldn't know about that since I have personal knowledge through being court appointed to represent many, many women (exclusively women) on Tampering with Governmental Records a.k.a. welfare fraud. It is a felony in Texas and I can assure you that is prosecuted. And in everyone of these criminal cases restitution was included, plus interest on the restitution and some times, the restitution is so high that the probation is revoked for failure to pay and they are sent to the pen. So forgive me but I wouldn't know about these and I would comment without seeing the file and then I could tell you if they were not prosecuted exactly why they weren't and why the other parent was ordered to pay.

 

[Whyte Noise]

BCB

I will start 2 separate threads here in a little while. I don't have the time to devote to what I have to say right now, but I'm looking forward to hearing from you on both issues. And I'll tell you ahead of time, I can only give you examples of people that I know personally just as you can only relate what you know of personally.

Just wanted to get that out up front. The facts I state are the facts as I know them from what I have personally witnessed or have gone through. I don't want it thought that I'm making things up as I go along...

 

[Boxcarbill]

Re: BCB

I will start 2 separate threads here in a little while. I don't have the time to devote to what I have to say right now, but I'm looking forward to hearing from you on both issues. And I'll tell you ahead of time, I can only give you examples of people that I know personally just as you can only relate what you know of personally.

Just wanted to get that out up front. The facts I state are the facts as I know them from what I have personally witnessed or have gone through. I don't want it thought that I'm making things up as I go along...

Nor do I have time right now to address some protracted posts. Incidentally, I would rather not focus on individual cases. It's quite valid to use personal experience to illustrate a point; but such anecdotes don't actually prove anything to anyone. The anecdotal fallacy can seem very compelling, especially if the audience wants to believe it but it doesn't prove anything to those who haven't shared the personal experience. The anecdotal fallacy usually is immediately followed by another logical fallacy: the hasty generalization or converse accident. This fallacy occurs when a person forms a general rule by examining only a few specific cases which aren't representative of all possible cases.

And no I can relate and speak to more than personal experience, although when I'm asked to share what my personal experience as I was in an earlier post in this thread then it is my personal experience that is be ask about. But I can relate and speak to the law and application of the law to the facts before me. And I can do it for every state in the union if I wanted to spend the time to do it. I don't--at least, not unless I'm going to be paid to do it. I can, however, tell you that I'm not going to sit here and engage in some meaningless round robin argument about some isolated case in which I have no independent knowledge of and would, therefore, be required to rely upon the facts as you have interpreted those facts in order to respond. That is a total waste of my time. So if you want to deal with issues and the law as it is applied to those issues, fine. But I'm not going to argue with you about your Aunt Marta's case.

 

[Whyte Noise]

Get off your high-horse BCB.

You are the one that said... "So let me know which issue that you would like for me to respond to: contempt action in court or the federal monies and enforcement tools used to collect child support. I have no problem addressing both issues but I would prefer to do so in two separate posts so that the readers will recognize the difference in these topics and can separate what we are talking about in their own minds rather than confusing them as though they are the same thing."

Now, you're saying that "I can, however, tell you that I'm not going to sit here and engage in some meaningless round robin argument about some isolated case in which I have no independent knowledge of and would, therefore, be required to rely upon the facts as you have interpreted those facts in order to respond. That is a total waste of my time. So if you want to deal with issues and the law as it is applied to those issues, fine. But I'm not going to argue with you about your Aunt Marta's case."

I don't believe I ever said that I'd be arguing anyone's Aunt's case. I stated that I would give you facts based on my own experiences and others that I know of personally. I would give those facts to illustrate the 2 points I'm trying to make, and noting more.

Don't read things into my words that aren't there. If you don't want to debate the issues, then fine. Say so. But don't think that I want to litigate something that's already been decided with you. That's the furthest thing from my mind. I just want some realistic answers to realistic concerns. If you don't want to, or can't, provide those, then that's fine by me. They can be asked another time in another place and be directed to another person. But, since it was you that invited the little debate, I thought I'd take you up on it.

Oh well.

 

[frylover]

BCB

I do not think I am "ignorant", and my original intent of this thread was really to understand why things work the way they do in Family Court. For example, I was truly interested in your offers to explain the difference in funds allocated for support vs. visitation enforcement and to address if there differences in court enforcement. Why? Because I wanted to be educated. No, I'm not a lawyer, I'm just a lowly teacher who couldn't afford to ride in the elevator up to your office, and a mom. And I am not too stupid to understand that the loser will always think they got screwed because that is human nature--hell, I teach five year olds so I know ALL about sore losers!

I am also not too stupid to understand that the law is the law, and that how I feel doesn't change it. My questions to you arose out of curiousity as to whether, as a lawyer, you really believed that the law is always right and that the system never makes a mistake that ends up with someone who didn't deserve it getting hurt. If you do, fine, I'll let it go at that.

I guess I'm gonna be banned now!

 

[Boxcarbill]

Get off your high-horse BCB.

You are the one that said... "So let me know which issue that you would like for me to respond to: contempt action in court or the federal monies and enforcement tools used to collect child support. I have no problem addressing both issues but I would prefer to do so in two separate posts so that the readers will recognize the difference in these topics and can separate what we are talking about in their own minds rather than confusing them as though they are the same thing."

Now, you're saying that "I can, however, tell you that I'm not going to sit here and engage in some meaningless round robin argument about some isolated case in which I have no independent knowledge of and would, therefore, be required to rely upon the facts as you have interpreted those facts in order to respond. That is a total waste of my time. So if you want to deal with issues and the law as it is applied to those issues, fine. But I'm not going to argue with you about your Aunt Marta's case."

I don't believe I ever said that I'd be arguing anyone's Aunt's case. I stated that I would give you facts based on my own experiences and others that I know of personally. I would give those facts to illustrate the 2 points I'm trying to make, and noting more.

Don't read things into my words that aren't there. If you don't want to debate the issues, then fine. Say so. But don't think that I want to litigate something that's already been decided with you. That's the furthest thing from my mind. I just want some realistic answers to realistic concerns. If you don't want to, or can't, provide those, then that's fine by me. They can be asked another time in another place and be directed to another person. But, since it was you that invited the little debate, I thought I'd take you up on it.

Oh well.

O.K. this is the reason I let these type of threads go with no response. "Get off your high horse--BCB." Next, it will be a whole string of argument ad hominem. Debate has rules. Debate is based upon logical reasoning. I didn't accuse you of anything. What I did let you know is the rules that I would play by and what I'm not going to engage in. " So if you want to deal with issues and the law as it is applied to those issues, fine. But I'm not going to argue with you about your Aunt Marta's case."

 

[Whyte Noise]

Oh, I don't mind dealing with the issues and the law at all. That was the point of me starting the two separate threads if I remember correctly. I just never said that I was going to throw out cases left and right and debate the contents of those specific cases. Only that I would use them as facts on which to base my points.

It was you that misinterpreted what I said apparently, saying you wouldn't particpate in "meaningless round robin arguments" about isolated cases. I just said I'd give examples of the issues, and those would be based on cases that I've been in personally, or cases of others that I know. Not that I'd only post certain cases and whine about the injustices of them.

Now, if you want to enlighten me on the law, please feel free to respond to those 2 threads. I'd love to have input from someone that makes the law their profession.

 

[Grace_Adler]

I just wanted to throw something into the mix here. I may not be getting the point at all but I just wanted to let people know how they work in good ol' NC, at least in the eastern part. LOL Yes, this is based on cases I've seen and speaking with a DSS worker myself.

As far as reprimanding or punishing NCP's for failure to pay, it doesn't matter if it is your first time to a show cause hearing or not, if you didn't pay, you go straight to jail. They do one of three things usually. 1. The arrears are forgiven by the CP, which rarely happens. 2. You come to court with money to pay what you owe in one lump sum or bring some to put down and make payment arrangements with the court. Sometimes the caseworkers are a-holes and don't want to do it so you are forced to get an attorney to make a deal. 3. If you don't have money to put down or pay one lump sum then you automatically go to jail. First offense or not. They also don't care what your reasons are, if you didn't pay, you're guilty and goodbye. See you in 30 days. Yes, I'm basing this on cases I've seen. After watching the courts in several different counties and over a hundred cases, you kinda get the idea. I've also had it confirmed by people I know who work in law enforcent and in the jails that the majority of the people in jail are there for not paying child support.

Also, I don't know how the rest of the country works and yes I'm only basing this on a case I know of but I'm using it as an example to show it does happen. I know of a DSS worker that didn't want to do anything about a case and she could have been handed proof on a silver platter if she wanted but didn't want to waste her time. She basically said.. so what, I don't care, I don't have time to worry about it, what's done is done, it's in the past and the father has to pay anyway regardless. I guess that's what it boils down to for some people. Who cares as long as it's getting paid back.

I think when you can prove the other spouse lived with the recipient, plus the recipient has more children while on assistance by their spouse because they are on the birth certificate and their address on it is the same as yours is sufficient evidence. Just an opinion but you would think that would be good enough. If the people were seperated and the recipient supposedly didn't know where the spouse was, then how did they keep getting pregnant and of course the father's name and address is put down on the BC? There was also mail proving the father lived there.

I'm just saying, it does happen. It may be rare, I don't know, but it's not unheard of. It's no surprise around here though. You are hard pressed to find anyone to want to get off their butts and do their job and do it correctly.

Anyway, I just thought this would be something to ponder.