Non-Custodial Parent means?

[leon clugston]

Agencies are purely investigatorial
they hold no executive or judicial authority
In Smyth v. Ames, 169 U.S. 466, 527, 18 S.Ct. 418, 426, 42 L.Ed. 819, the court said: 'The idea that any legislature, state or federal, can conclusively determine for the people and for the courts that what it enacts in the form of law, or what it authorizes its agents to do, is consistent with the fundamental law, is in opposition to the theory of our institutions.   The duty rests upon all courts, federal and state, when their jurisdiction is properly invoked, to see to it that no right secured by the supreme law of the land is impaired or destroyed by legislation.'

Mahler v. Eby, 264 U.S. 32, 44, 44 S.Ct. 283, 68 L.Ed. 549.   The court held that delegation of pure legislative power is unconstitutional and said that, in creating such an administrative agency the legislature, to prevent its being a pure delegation of legislative power, must enjoin upon it a certain course of procedure and certain rules of decision and that the agency must pursue the procedure and rules and show substantial compliance therewith to give validity to its action.   The court held also the lack of an express finding could not be supplied by inference
Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 64 S.Ct. 438, 88 L.Ed. 645 (1944), and again confirmed that there is a constitutional dimension to the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children.  "It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary  *66 function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder."  Id., at 166, 64 S.Ct. 438.
 In Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447, 14 S.Ct. 1125, 38 L.Ed. 1047 (1894), the Supreme Court suggested by way of dictum that an administrative agency which enjoys subpoena powers of the kind enjoyed by the Secretary cannot "under our system of government, and consistently with due process of law, be invested with authority to compel obedience to its orders by a judgment of fine or imprisonment." 154 U.S. at 485, 14 S.Ct. at 1136.

To say that the test of equal protection should be the 'legal' rather than the biological relationship is to avoid the issue.  For the Equal Protection Clause necessarily limits the authority of a State to draw such 'legal' lines as it chooses.'  Glona v. American Guarantee & Liability Ins. Co., 391 U.S. 73, 75-76, 88 S.Ct. 1515, 1516, 20 L.Ed.2d 441 (1968)
'It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the **1213 state can neither supply nor hinder.'  Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166, 64 S.Ct. 438, 442, 88 L.Ed. 645 (1944).  
offices and officers
In the adjudged decision of State v. Hawkins, 257 P. 411, 413-418 (Sup. Ct. Mont. 1927) is an exhaustive examination of the essential elements to be a "public Officer" of a civil nature in any of the several States and the requirements pertaining to the creation of an "Office" in any of the several States based upon the holdings of many decisions of numerous courts of the several States which are omitted for brevity, but are relied upon, and this holding is ibid at  418, to wit:   
After an exhaustive examination of the authorities, we hold that five elements are indispensable in any position of public employment, in order to make it a public office of a civil nature: (1) It must be created by the Constitution or by the Legislature or created by a municipality or other body through authority conferred by the Legislature; (2) it must possess a delegation of a portion of the sovereign power of government, to be exercised for the benefit of the public; (3) the powers conferred, and the duties to be discharged, must be defined, directly or impliedly, by the Legislature or through legislative authority; (4) the duties must be performed independently and without control of a superior power, other than the law, unless they be those of an inferior or subordinate office, created or authorized by the Legislature, and by it placed under the general control of a superior officer or body; (5) it must have some permanency and continuity, and not be only temporary or occasional. In addition, in this state, an officer must take and file an official oath, hold a commission or other written authority, and give an official bond, if the latter be required by proper authority.  [Emphasis added

[mistoffolees]

Nonetheless, until a court rules on the issue, you are incorrect in claiming that the States are behaving in illegal behavior.

You've made it clear that you THINK that the states are behaving illegally, but that's meaningless until the courts rule that way. Anyone following your advice runs the risk of hurting themselves immensely considering that there's an immense amount of legislation and case law which opposes your opinion.

[leon clugston]

I posted fact, with cases to support, from the U.S Supreme Court, not my opinion. There is no Think, or opinion from me, only youre's, created by youre self enterest, rather directly or indirectly, pecuinary, or equitable.
Case law against? Hmmm, is someone wearing a ficititious title under there name. It would greatly explain there motives for halfheartedly trying to sway the facts.

My alleged advice, is backed with the cases to supprt, from which anyone can gather info from, and then draw there own conclusion on how to proceed.
I have yet to see you post one law, statute or code, with a corresponding regulation, and I have yet to see you post one case, of any court,  

[mistoffolees]

No, you haven't provided a Supreme Court case which supports your position. Instead, you've provided Supreme Court cases which you then pretend apply to the situation of child support and custody. There's a HUGE difference.

Until the courts say that they apply to custody and support, they don't. And the fact that many thousands of courts around the country and 50 legislatures do NOT believe that your cases apply means that your position is tenuous, at best.

Today, we have mountains of case law and legislation that say that the States DO have a right to regulate custody and child support on one side. On your side, we have some Supreme Court cases which you THINK apply to child support and custody.

The prudent thing is to follow the law as written and interpreted by the courts rather than your speculation.

[leon clugston]

Quote -"The prudent thing is to follow the law as written and interpreted by the courts rather than your speculation."

"Interpreted"--a thought an opinion,
Written law,,,agencies have no executive or judicial power,,Nor do they hold any authority to establish custody,,,they are fact finders, investigatorial,,of course one can consent there status to them, for which no harm can be held, however without that consent of ones status, then there is no authority to proceed.

Opinion, yeah you seem to have that a lot, might be that self enterest of youres.
Being I dont get paid, to misdirect, nor do I gain from misdirection I realy have no broad enterest in the outcome of other peoples misfortunes, nor do I directly or indirectly prosper from there actions.

Agencies have a direct pecuinary enterest in every case before them, as do the Employees that work for them.

At least my postings is researchable with the correct cites.

[mistoffolees]

Since your grammar is so bad, perhaps you didn't see "interpreted BY THE COURTS". The courts have the right to interpret the law and make it stick. Therefore a court interpretation is valid. Your interprtetation is not, unless you can get the court to affirm your interpretation.

The facts are simple - every one of the states has legislation wrt child support and custody. The courts in every single state affirm that right be adjudicating custody and support cases.

On the other hand, you BELIEVE that you're correctly interpreting some Supreme Court cases and BELIEVE that all 50 states and all those thousands of courts are just plain wrong. Sorry, but that doesn't carry any weight. If and when you get the Supreme Court to agree with you that your intepretation is valid, people will listen.

Your citatations are meaningless since none of them directly support your case without a lot of twisting and stretching. Since the courts and state legislators in every single state continue to handle custody and support issues, no one seems to believe that you've proven anything.

[Jade]

>Quote -"The prudent thing is to follow the law as written and
>interpreted by the courts rather than your speculation."
>
>"Interpreted"--a thought an opinion,
>Written law,,,agencies have no executive or judicial
>power,,Nor do they hold any authority to establish
>custody,,,they are fact finders, investigatorial,,of course
>one can consent there status to them, for which no harm can be
>held, however without that consent of ones status, then there
>is no authority to proceed.
>

Until the Supreme Court actually agrees with your OPINION that the case laws that you stated apply to custody and child support (which I highly doubt it will), it is only your OPINION that it does.  

[leon clugston]

still nothing to back youre opinion.
Interpretation--in mysty's quote of the courts interpreting
my alleged opinion, as you put it, was backed with support wheres youres.
All i have seen is youre opinions, with nothing to support.
But being youre self enterest and laziness to do youre homework, I see neither of you brought any facts or case to rebut what i posted, all I see is nothing but youre one sided opinions.
And this ending issue had nothing to do with my case it was a response to a question entered by another.

[mistoffolees]

First, you need to learn to read and write the English language. The above is completely incomprehensible.

Second, as soon as a court confirms your opinion that the States have no right to determine custody or support issues, let us know. Until then, it's nothing more than your uninformed opinion.

[Jade]

>still nothing to back youre opinion.
>Interpretation--in mysty's quote of the courts interpreting
>my alleged opinion, as you put it, was backed with support
>wheres youres.
>All i have seen is youre opinions, with nothing to support.
>But being youre self enterest and laziness to do youre
>homework, I see neither of you brought any facts or case to
>rebut what i posted, all I see is nothing but youre one sided
>opinions.
>And this ending issue had nothing to do with my case it was a
>response to a question entered by another.
>


Your opinion isn't backed up by the Supreme Court.  If the Supreme Court were to hear the case and actually agree with you, then please post that.  Until then, it is your opinion and your intepretation of laws that you think back you up.  

The fact that you haven't won backs up my opinion.  

I don't have to disprove anything you say until you have actually proven what you say.  Which you haven't.