Messages

>>
>>
>>
>
>
>Exactly. That's why it's counter-productive to take the
>position that the entire system is out to 'get' the fathers
>and needs to be thrown out.
>
>The system isn't perfect, but these 'the entire system is
>stacked against the father' arguments don't do any good.
>Better to work within the system to change it.


you realy should read title 42 U.S.C  654-669, with the damming part being in section "666" and the supporting regs in title 45 CFR's
Then  when you realy want to see what is realy happening, I will be more than gladly to email you the Great Private law "Cooperative Agreements" that every state is bound by, and every court, every judge including Texas most prized special associate judges.

There is two parts to this, for which some will argue, but cannot back up as usual.
A 16 year old can not by law, nor by deffinition of law be held for a liability of contract, "Child support" is a legal contract, however after said time of such child reaching the age of "Adult" by legal deffinition in whatever state he was resideing in, then such child/ Adult, can be held liable forward. Now of course, this means that the parents of the said obligor could have been held responsible for said support untill said child had become of age, however this can "NOT" be applied retroactively, so there for for two years you have an argument, after that, there is a loss, but then there also is the matter of did he have an Administartive Order, or a Court Order, this difference in process has meanings to, and was this case closed and not being enforced? or was it simpily sitting on the side for vindication?

>>when in doubt and questioning what is alleged to be legal,
>go
>>look it up on the federal side. No other person, or persons
>is
>>repsonsible for youre alleged debts, nor can they be held
>for
>>youre alleged debts. all Information,financial and such of
>>theres is useable or admissable, of course there is some
>here
>>who will argue, but there protecting what the Supreme Court
>>has established as absolute fact, Cooperative Federalism,
>its
>>where the state are bound by the federal regs under the
>>Cooperative agreements.
>
>
>Just to note that your view is not supported by legislation OR
>case law.
>
Supported by tons of case law, you just choose to ignore them for youre own personal enterest

when in doubt and questioning what is alleged to be legal, go look it up on the federal side. No other person, or persons is repsonsible for youre alleged debts, nor can they be held for youre alleged debts. all Information,financial and such of theres is useable or admissable, of course there is some here who will argue, but there protecting what the Supreme Court has established as absolute fact, Cooperative Federalism, its where the state are bound by the federal regs under the Cooperative agreements.

Dont recall anywhere saying that equal protection warrents discontinuing support..please where did I say that, Ime waiting...
For this discussion I didn't mention jurisdiction, why bother, few understand it anyways, and those that know will try anything to cover it up.
Of course since you want to go there, jurisdiction is based upon youre status and what citizenship you claim..//
must be nice to circumnavigate the issues to ward off ones enterest.

child isn't living under the roof of the CP? then under what is called legal reasoning she herself is no longer substaining him, nor a residence for him.
However there is in some states, a set amount of time that must go by- you might want to check into that- and of course then there is the question of, if you divorced was there some stipulations in youre decree on how long you were to pay and where there any mentioned actions if he was to prematurely move out.
Otherwise all you would need to do is file a simple motion in the court to end support.

Funny, not a word in here about juisdiction from me anyways, the discussion here was equal protection of the laws, and equal protection of the children, instead of just one. Since we are talking about more than
one child here,
And what am I wrong about? because someone "ie"  the state isn't syphoning money off the latter children, that they have no right to equal protection? that might be what youre administrative manual says but that will only goes as far as somone lets it.
Congress might have created the benefit"s" and therefor can limit or completely deny the remedy but only within the administrative side.

Funny I thought all children of a mans was his responsibilty, not just the one that a judge created a legal obligation to.
Why should a person sell there house? just to make someones elses life easier for which they hold no obligation to" the EX"
There is an obligation to the child, yes, but not the state, nor the EX, there is also an obligation to any other children outside the Judgement of the court, even though its is under all legal theory only a moral obligation," being that the courts are the one's that make it a legal obligation" its still a obligation, in either event, if such were to depart, the court would make it a legal obligation,,holding to that value then one must with reason come to the overall desision that are not all kids created equal, and do not all kids deserve the same standard of living, reagaurdless to when or where they were born.

due to reasons of the state, you cannot just walkaway scott free on support, unless of course there is a legal adoption to said child.
Now as far as youre other child, remember all children are inhernetly entitled to equal protection, something the state doesn't like, but there it is.
Now as far as youre Judge, being biased in some form or another, welcome to the Administrative world,,But being on that subject, have you ever Heard of the Cooperative Agreements"Private law"?
This is where the courts/ judges are bound by a contract to make someone an Obligor, usualy being, but not always, the working party, and they must by this contract make someone pay through the state.

 the Social Services will probably try to list you as a administrative determined NCP, and will use the past application as a factor, even though its void now.
The chances of you paying out the alleged debt(to the statre) is dependant on how far you are willing to go with this,,ie.. how high in the courts.
The question that needs to be answered is what type of hearing, "Administrative, or judicial"

The overall will probably be har far are you willing to go.