Non-Custodial Parent means?

[leon clugston]

sounds more like youre opinion.

[FatherTime]

Good Stuff

I like it.  I'll investigate into this a little more.  



Mistoffolees quoted and replied:
--------------

>in some cases, YES, they are illegaly Administratively
>determining custody.

Your opinion.

Until the courts settle this issue, it is incorrect to state that what they are doing is illegal.

-------------

Beg to differ on this.  

A different scenario, off topic but with similiarities.

Setting:
Black Hills in South Dakota
("Child" of the earth -- Holy Land to Native Americans)
Given to Native Americans in a Treaty in 1868.

There was gold found in "them thar hills" and the treaty was illegally broken by Non-Natives.  The land (custody) was illegaly taken for profit, Gold (CS).  The Native Americans stated all along that the land and all that it held for them was illegaly taken.  

The Supreme Court LATER (100 years or so) agreed with Native American Tribes and the U.S. was ordered to pay the Native Americans a monetary settlement.  The Native-Americans still want the land back, and have refused the money.  The money sits in "trust" accounts.  

Point being....  It's was illegal the entire time and still is illegaly withheld from the non-custodial "Injun" (Deadbeat Dad).

It is illegal to steal a bike, even if you don't get caught, arrested, and sentenced.

But it is just my opinion.  I can be opinionated.

To answer the question that I posed, and this is just my opinion:

 I believe that in a few cases that the State of Washington, specifically, is illegally allowing the Department of Child Support Enforcement to break that specific treaty, I mean that specific Revised Code of Washington (RCW).  But I do understand that the RCW is not the law, per se, but the law is, more specifically, the "Interpretation" of the R.C.W. by the courts. Technically, however, I think I have a hook.

But who really cares.

[leon clugston]

Agencies are fact finders,
Imagine one person,"yes a agency can consist of one person" being youre judge and jury, Administrative determinations, Administrative reviews, take place without youre presence, without youre 5th amendment right, without youre right to accounter, and or to deposition.
A couple of things come to quick mind-Denial of Due Process
Usurpation of the Judicial Courts
And in such cases, usurpation of the Executive branch, since there operating on Administrative laws, which have no effect on the general public, or more correctly can not be used as public law.
Seperation of powers and etc...

[FatherTime]

I understand.  

He/She [a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_law_judge](Administrative Law Judge)[/a] is determining the custody/custodian/custodial parent WITHOUT A SCHEDULE to go by in the rush to get money (and matching funds for the administration from the feds) for the custodial custodian with custody from the non-custodial meal ticket without a clue.

[mistoffolees]

>I understand.  
>
>He/She [a
>href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_law_judge](Administrative
>Law Judge)[/a] is determining the custody/custodian/custodial
>parent WITHOUT A SCHEDULE to go by in the rush to get money
>(and matching funds for the administration from the feds) for
>the custodial custodian with custody from the non-custodial
>meal ticket without a clue.

I think you're missing the entire point.

No one is denying that the courts and even state administrations are determining custody. Of course this happens - hundreds of thousands or millions of times a year.

The issue is that leon is insisting that this is illegal and whenever someone asks for advice, he jumps in with his second grade spelling and grammar to say that the states have no right to do that and that they should fight the states to take control of their own lives.

Jade and I are pointing out that there is massive case law and precedent that the states have the right to control custody and support. Until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, leon's pretending that he's quoting the real law is just hot aiir.

Someone facing a custody and support issue with a state would be a fool to walk in and tell them that they have no right to determine custody or support because leon gave them some arguments. No matter how little you like it, the current law of the land supports the states' rights to determine custody and support. Period.

[leon clugston]

And like usual you spouted youre mouth off without understanding what ime talking about.
You keep on stateing massive case law precedent, but have yet to present one.
Nor do you deny that agencies are fact finders, nor do you deny that they have no judical authority.
Ive said it before and ille say it again, I have no special enterest in anyones elses case, but YOU sure do.

[mistoffolees]

Do you deny that States and courts determine custody and support every single day?

As long as States and courts are determining custody and support every day, THAT is the prevailing law.

YOU have the burden of proof of showing that they don't, not me. And your wishes don't count. You need a Supreme Court ruling which specifically states that States and Courts are not allowed to determine support and custody.

Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't seen a Supreme Corut ruling that says that. Until they do, you're wrong.

[leon clugston]

and you got lost in the discussion. He was talking about administrative determinations of custody, not Judicial Decisions by a court, big Difference, and there is a big differrence in prevailing law on the two.
But being you spend so much time trying to discredit me, you didn't bother to read thoroughly

[mistoffolees]

I read it just fine. You're simply refusing to acknowledge reality because it conflicts with your delusions.

As I said, the States (including administrators like the one you're complaining about) do this every day. There are thousands of situations like this.

By approving these decisions, the courts are affirming the legality.

Until the Supreme Court says it's wrong, it's the law. Period.

No matter how much you whine or fantasize, the law as interpreted by every state and every court in the nation is that the states have the right to make that administrative decision.

[leon clugston]

show me where an administrator for an Agency has any statutorial authority, with a correpsonding CFR's, or administartive regulation to decide custody outside of a court without a hearing.