Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Federal child support law not supporting jail time

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Federal child support law not supporting jail time

    I was told there was a child support law that came into effect Jan 1st that did not allow a person to be arrested for nonpayment of child support. Has anyone heard of this and if so can you tell me where I can look it up.

  • #2
    Re: Federal child support law not supporting jail time

    I have not yet run across this but if it's true, it's about time someone took it to issue and stood up for their constitutional rights. It's highly irregular that civil matters result in jail time, and it's highly irregular that while the police cannot do anything about such civil matters, the state can arbitrarily jail people who fall on hard times.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Federal child support law not supporting jail time

      There is no such law. All Dead Beats should go to jail.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Federal child support law not supporting jail time

        Is that where you are posting from? You seem like a deadbeat in the truest sense of the word. You are about as intelligent as a rock.

        What "should be" in your puny minded world and what is are two totally different things.

        Got burned by a man? Too bad. Go get a job and stop sponging off others.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Federal child support law not supporting jail time

          Is Child Support considered " sponging off others?" as you said? If thats the case, why dont we tell babies when they are first born, "Hey kid, stop sponging off of me, go get a job!" I mean that makes total sense, right?

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Federal child support law not supporting jail time

            Is there such kind of law? I haven't heard it yet.
            FTC Attorney
            Chicago Patent Lawyer
            Dietary Supplement Lawyer

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Federal child support law not supporting jail time

              It's not a debt, nor a civil matter. It IS a criminal matter as it equates to child neglect. It's not different than the CP not buying groceries for the child.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Federal child support law not supporting jail time

                It very much is a civil matter.

                It only becomes "criminal" when the state gets involved and child support payments are not being paid to the state. When the state doesn't get its money, jail time can ensue. That is the only reason jail time comes into play. It's not because the person responsible for paying the child support is "neglecting" the child. It's because money is being non-forthcoming to the state. The state really could care less that the child isn't receiving the benefits from child support money. The state has its own fiduciary agenda.

                There has never been a case where two people were in agreement on child support - with the state not involved in collecting any monies - where the child support payor was place in jail for failure to pay.

                If one were to take the time to thoroughly research how the family law system - and state welfare systems - actually works and why jail time for failure to pay child support came into existence, there would be much less confusion and misinformation being propagated.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Federal child support law not supporting jail time

                  Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                  It very much is a civil matter.

                  It only becomes "criminal" when the state gets involved and child support payments are not being paid to the state. When the state doesn't get its money, jail time can ensue. That is the only reason jail time comes into play. It's not because the person responsible for paying the child support is "neglecting" the child. It's because money is being non-forthcoming to the state. The state really could care less that the child isn't receiving the benefits from child support money. The state has its own fiduciary agenda.

                  There has never been a case where two people were in agreement on child support - with the state not involved in collecting any monies - where the child support payor was place in jail for failure to pay.

                  If one were to take the time to thoroughly research how the family law system - and state welfare systems - actually works and why jail time for failure to pay child support came into existence, there would be much less confusion and misinformation being propagated.
                  Actually, when my kids father decided to go to court, we both opted to handle it together on agreement from both of us. I got full custody, and agreed to no back support BEFORE we went to the hearing. They gave him a amount of what he should pay a month. He willingly agreed to it. 4 years later he has willingly not made 1 payment.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Federal child support law not supporting jail time

                    Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                    It very much is a civil matter.

                    It only becomes "criminal" when the state gets involved and child support payments are not being paid to the state. When the state doesn't get its money, jail time can ensue. That is the only reason jail time comes into play. It's not because the person responsible for paying the child support is "neglecting" the child. It's because money is being non-forthcoming to the state. The state really could care less that the child isn't receiving the benefits from child support money. The state has its own fiduciary agenda.

                    There has never been a case where two people were in agreement on child support - with the state not involved in collecting any monies - where the child support payor was place in jail for failure to pay.

                    If one were to take the time to thoroughly research how the family law system - and state welfare systems - actually works and why jail time for failure to pay child support came into existence, there would be much less confusion and misinformation being propagated.
                    That is completely incorrect. Not every state collects the support money from the NCP to pay to the CP. Some states require the NCP to pay the CP directly. The state is only involved in setting the amount. If the NCP does not pay, they can still go to jail. New York, for example is one such state. The state does not get the money unless the CP requests the state do so (and the CP pays a fee for this service as well).

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Federal child support law not supporting jail time

                      Originally posted by grim509 View Post
                      That is completely incorrect. Not every state collects the support money from the NCP to pay to the CP. Some states require the NCP to pay the CP directly. The state is only involved in setting the amount. If the NCP does not pay, they can still go to jail. New York, for example is one such state. The state does not get the money unless the CP requests the state do so (and the CP pays a fee for this service as well).
                      But it still does not negate the fact that the state has gotten involved, now does it?

                      Semantics. I'm sure everyone knows the definition. It equates to apples and oranges.

                      Incidentally, it very much is correct. Anyone who asserts otherwise is sadly misinformed and ignorant of the law.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Federal child support law not supporting jail time

                        Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                        I was told there was a child support law that came into effect Jan 1st that did not allow a person to be arrested for nonpayment of child support. Has anyone heard of this and if so can you tell me where I can look it up.
                        yes it's true no prison time just county time

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Federal child support law not supporting jail time

                          Originally posted by grim509 View Post
                          It's not a debt, nor a civil matter. It IS a criminal matter as it equates to child neglect. It's not different than the CP not buying groceries for the child.
                          wrong i went to court ask the judge on the record about that child support civil or criminal he said what civil all day long on the record where the contract - continue!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Federal child support law not supporting jail time

                            Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                            wrong i went to court ask the judge on the record about that child support civil or criminal he said what civil all day long on the record where the contract - continue!
                            Look up Contempt of Court. That is the reformed law concerning child support in arrears. At least in Texas.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Federal child support law not supporting jail time

                              CONTEMPT OF COURT: UNITED STATES

                              Under American jurisprudence, acts of contempt are divided into two types.
                              1. Direct contempt is that which occurs in the presence of the presiding judge (in facie curiae) and may be dealt with summarily: the judge notifies the offending party that he or she has acted in a manner which disrupts the tribunal and prejudices the administration of justice. After giving the person the opportunity to respond, the judge may impose the sanction immediately.
                              2. Indirect contempt occurs outside the immediate presence of the court and consists of disobedience of a court's prior order. Generally a party will be accused of indirect contempt by the party for whose benefit the order was entered. A person cited for indirect contempt is entitled to notice of the charge and an opportunity for hearing of the evidence of contempt and to present evidence in rebuttal.

                              Contempt of court in a civil suit is generally not considered to be a criminal offense, with the party benefiting from the order also holding responsibility for the enforcement of the order. However, some cases of civil contempt have been perceived as intending to harm the reputation of the plaintiff, or to a lesser degree, the judge or the court.

                              Sanctions for contempt may be criminal or civil. If a person is to be punished criminally, then the contempt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but once the charge is proven, then punishment (such as a fine or, in more serious cases, imprisonment) is imposed unconditionally. The civil sanction for contempt (which is typically incarceration in the custody of the sheriff or similar court officer) is limited in its imposition for so long as the disobedience to the court's order continues: once the party complies with the court's order, the sanction is lifted. The imposed party is said to "hold the keys" to his or her own cell, thus conventional due process is not required. The burden of proof for civil contempt, however, is a preponderance of the evidence, and punitive sanctions (punishment) can only be imposed after due process.

                              Comment

                              Previously entered content was automatically saved. Restore or Discard.
                              Auto-Saved
                              Embarrassment :o Confused :confused: Smile :) Stick Out Tongue :p Wink ;) Mad :mad: Big Grin :D Frown :( Roll Eyes (Sarcastic) :rolleyes: Cool :cool: EEK! :eek:
                              x
                              Insert: Thumbnail Small Medium Large Fullsize Remove  
                              x

                              Do cats say meow or mooo?... (write the answer twice with an "@" between the words)

                              widgetinstance 213 (Related Topics) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                              Working...
                              X