Interesting Article

[POC]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/16/grossman.child.support/index.html

Since you brought up the compelling state interest argument in my last post, I thought I'd bring up this Wisconsin Supreme Court case. Here are my thoughts:

The chilren's needs are in no jeopardy of going unprovided for. To the contray, the father is even setting aside an additional $400 per month for their college savings. The only state interest in this case is one of a public taking for a public purpose (federal welfare money). If that issue (nneds) had been properly dealt with, then the court would not have found itself in such a quandary. It is little wonder the court was so torn in which way to act. It is ill-equipped to make parental decisions, when two fit parents are there to decide them for their children. This is a clear example where the fact that the parents don't agree that the courts still don't need to get involved. If these parents were married and having the same argument about her not wanting to go back to work, the court would not get involved. The children are in no danger from her refusal to work. As such, the court has no reason to rule.

How would that do in court?

[socrateaser]

>http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/16/grossman.child.support/index.html
>
>Since you brought up the compelling state interest argument in
>my last post, I thought I'd bring up this Wisconsin Supreme
>Court case. Here are my thoughts:
>
>The chilren's needs are in no jeopardy of going unprovided
>for. To the contray, the father is even setting aside an
>additional $400 per month for their college savings. The only
>state interest in this case is one of a public taking for a
>public purpose (federal welfare money). If that issue (nneds)
>had been properly dealt with, then the court would not have
>found itself in such a quandary. It is little wonder the court
>was so torn in which way to act. It is ill-equipped to make
>parental decisions, when two fit parents are there to decide
>them for their children. This is a clear example where the
>fact that the parents don't agree that the courts still don't
>need to get involved. If these parents were married and having
>the same argument about her not wanting to go back to work,
>the court would not get involved. The children are in no
>danger from her refusal to work. As such, the court has no
>reason to rule.
>
>How would that do in court?

Your cited case is irrelevant to the issue of public taking. A minor child is an innocent, under the custody and control of parents. A parent has a reasonable duty to provide for an innocent child who is legally disabled from providing for him/herself, and is practically disabled by inexperience and the ignorance of youth.

An ADULT child, however, suffers from none of the above impairments. While the adult child may be inexperienced and ignorant, the law makes that child personally responsible for his/her actions and entitled to assert all of his/her property, liberty and life interests without any influence of his/her parents. When the State orders money taken from an adult parent to support an otherwise fit adult child who is capable of obtaining full-time gainful employment (regardless of the quality of that employment -- McDonald's, etc.), the State has ordered a prohibited "private taking" under the 5th Amendment. Even if the taking were deeemed for a public purpose, the parent is entitled to just compensation, which in this case, would be $1 for every $1 paid to the child. In short, the duty of support is effectively transferred to the State, or the State must forbear from the taking, because the takings clause should nullify the transaction, by forcing the State to pay the parent back for every cent taken.

I don't actually understand your argument -- nothing fits together. I suggest you reconsider.