Child Support Rant

[dontunderstand]

Again, I am sorry!  They really make it difficult for those that try to do right!  And those that don't, well they get every chance and then some!  DH was behind because he didn't even know their was a SD (and BM had no clue who the BF was it was a 1 in 7 shot)  so went DNA came back he had to repay the state and pay for testing.  They took current support and some arrears from each check and then took his income tax for I think 2 years.  Some how that isn't quite fair either.  BM had no responsibility for sleeping around.  Oh well it is said and done and he hasn't been behind since then.  I know that if we miss a month we will have to file a harrassment suit!  ;)

[flewwellin]

I am really ashamed to call myself a woman sometimes.  The actions of some of these women make me feel physically ill.  I bet your DH was shocked that he was the 1 in 7 that came out positive.  I don't think it's right that they could make him pay arrears for a child that he didn't even know he had.  A more appropriate approach would be to just start from that date, because this was the date he actually became a father!

[dontunderstand]

I agree!  I detest that I am "a baby mama" I pose no drama, yet most females that I hear about are just like that.  
I too feel like he just got blind-sided and now he has to fight at every bend in the road just to see SD and have a relationship with her.  BM is constantly showing her sociopathic behind and making visits miserable for all involved!  
I have BEGGED my DD BF to be a part of DD life, but he refuses and yet men that do want to step up and be men are denied...it is a true tradgedy!

[flewwellin]

DH and I went to court yesterday about our 1 month late support, which was paid by the end of the July in full.  We just had our receipt showing that the arrears are caught up and showed the cancelled check.  So we were told DH wasn't in Contempt and that we could leave.  Why wouldn't they have told us this before the court date? I dont know, however DH did have a question to ask the judge.  He wanted to continue paying weekly instead of having his pay check garnished.  That was when we found out that it was a state statute that it be garnished.  Oh by the way we were the last ones heard and the person calling the cases KNEW what we wanted to ask the judge.

[mplsfitter539]

 am writing to you today so that I can share something with you that I found or stumbled on more or less. I hope this information can help to set men free of the tyranny of Family Court. Anyway here is what I found. I was reading USC at Title 18 sec. 1581 Peonage when it occurred to me that enforcing an order to pay support cannot be enforced without voluntary compliance. Black's Law defines Peonage as a condition of servitude (prohibited by the 13th amendment and Title 18 sec. 1581 of the USC) compelling persons to perform labor in order to pay of a debt.   TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 77 > § 1581  

§ 1581. Peonage; obstructing enforcement


(a) Whoever holds or returns any person to a condition of peonage, or arrests any person with the intent of placing him in or returning him to a condition of peonage, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If death results from the violation of this section, or if the violation includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or the attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, the defendant shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.
(b) Whoever obstructs, or attempts to obstruct, or in any way interferes with or prevents the enforcement of this section, shall be liable to the penalties prescribed in subsection (a
  TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1994
 
§ 1994. Peonage abolished

 The holding of any person to service or labor under the system known as peonage is abolished and forever prohibited in any Territory or State of the United States; and all acts, laws, resolutions, orders, regulations, or usages of any Territory or State, which have heretofore established, maintained, or enforced, or by virtue of which any attempt shall hereafter be made to establish, maintain, or enforce, directly or indirectly, the voluntary or involuntary service or labor of any persons as peons, in liquidation of any debt or obligation, or otherwise, are declared null and void.

Also Minnesota Supreme Court Case Clausen v. Clausen  which reversed the order of a district court for violation of the elements necessary to find a party in civil contempt.
250 Minn. 293; 84 N.W.2d 675; 1957 Minn. LEXIS 631