Equal Protection Question

[POC]

In your opinion, does the federal statute that only requires child support guidelines to consider all of the NCP's income, but not necessarily the CP's income, violate the Equal Protection Clause within the Constitution?

[socrateaser]

>In your opinion, does the federal statute that only requires
>child support guidelines to consider all of the NCP's income,
>but not necessarily the CP's income, violate the Equal
>Protection Clause within the Constitution?

Extremely doubtful. The equal protection clause only requires that a statute bear a reasonable relationship to a legitimate government interest, unless the impaired person is a suspect class (race, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sometimes age, gender). Here, the paying parent is classified by his/her being denied custody in an amount sufficient to cause the guidelines to require imposition of a child support award. This is not a traditionally suspect class, and no court is likely to create a new class for this circumstances, therefore the statute will be deemed constitutional if it is reasonably related to a legitimate state interest.

The state's interest is the child's welfare, and child support is a legitimate means of advancing the state's interest. Therefore, the statute does not violate the equal protection clause.

If, the statute were worded so that only men were subjected to being the paying parent, or, if you could show, that, as applied, the statute rarely was applied to women and when it was it was applied with far less certainty in the amount of the award, then you might be able to make a case that person's in such circumstances were being denied equal protection.

But, as a general rule there is no constitutional impairment as the result of ordering a parent to pay child support to a "minor" child. As for an adult child -- that's an entirely different matter, however my argument is that the impairment is found in the takings, rather in the equal protection clause.

[POC]

The equal protection clause only requires
>that a statute bear a reasonable relationship to a legitimate
>government interest, unless the impaired person is a suspect
>class

1) I wasn't so much focusing on the plight of NCP's as a protected class. I realize that by and large no one cares about them. But, is it reasonable that income of NCP's would be considered beneficial to a child, but that income of CP's should not be considered for the benefit of the child?

2) In the case described, there was no CP or NCP, as it was joint physical custody. As such, does that violate the Equal Protection Clause?

>The state's interest is the child's welfare, and child support
>is a legitimate means of advancing the state's interest.
>Therefore, the statute does not violate the equal protection
>clause.

3) In this case, there was no claim that the children were being deprived. But, the state seemed to be saying that the children would benefit from one parent staying at home. Does the state's interest in the child's welfare extend beyond assuring that the child's needs are met?

my argument is that the impairment
>is found in the takings, rather in the equal protection
>clause.

4) So, does this mean that you did agree that it is a public taking for a public interest?

[socrateaser]

>>1) I wasn't so much focusing on the plight of NCP's as a
>protected class. I realize that by and large no one cares
>about them. But, is it reasonable that income of NCP's would
>be considered beneficial to a child, but that income of CP's
>should not be considered for the benefit of the child?

This is irrelevant. The constitutional analyze doesn't require that every sentence and phrase in a statute be reasonable, only that the statutory language have a rational connection to the child's interests. It is reasonable (arguable, but reasonable) that having a parent forgo work in preference to raising a child. Therefore, the discrimination between noncustodial and custodial parents is permissible, even though it may be unfair and even poor legislative logic, because it is, at least, reasonably related to the state's interest in the child's welfare.

>2) In the case described, there was no CP or NCP, as it was
>joint physical custody. As such, does that violate the Equal
>Protection Clause?

That's an interesting argument. If true, then the parents are actually members of the same class, and therefore, the government's unequal treatment might indeed be not reasonably related, because there is no reason why the father should not be permitted to work less in order to devote more time to the child. However, this is not what the father requested -- he requested to pay less money, not to be permitted to work less, so, on this theory, equal protection only applies when persons are not treated similarly in similar circumstances. The court is not actually treating the parents dissimilarly, because the circumstances are not similar. Therefore equal protection doesn't apply.
>

>3) In this case, there was no claim that the children were
>being deprived. But, the state seemed to be saying that the
>children would benefit from one parent staying at home. Does
>the state's interest in the child's welfare extend beyond
>assuring that the child's needs are met?

For constitutional analysis purposes, the scope of the State's interest is irrelevant. The State has a compelling interest in its children's welfare, so the State may craft legislation to advance that interest, as long as the legislation does not interfere with fundamental rights or is so irrational that no reasonable person would believe that the statute advanced the state's interest in its children.

>4) So, does this mean that you did agree that it is a public
>taking for a public interest?

A parent has a legal duty that has existed since the beginning of time to support his/her minor children. The taking of a parent's income to pay the child satisfies the parent's duty and therefore is just compensation.

The duty to support one's ADULT child's college education has existed for about 10 years, and is not universal even among the several States. In effect, the State has created a duty, so that it can "take" the paying parent's income to satisfy the created duty.

If such state regulatory enactments are constitutional, then the takings clause protection of the constitution is dissolved, because, all the state need do is enact a duty and then take a person's property to satisfy the enacted duty. So, for example, the state enacts legislation confirming Marx's original dictum "From each according to his ability, to each according to their needs." Having done this, it is now permissible to take the property of any person and give it to any other in satisfaction of the duty enacted, and the state has just enacted a totalitarian state against the prohibition of the 5th Amendment demanding that just compensation be paid for any taking.

The state cannot have it both ways -- either the child is a minor, under the control and custody of his/her parents, and therefore, the state has a compelling interest in the child's welfare and the parent owes the child a duty that has existed since time immemorial to support that child, in which case the taking is proper, or the child is an adult entitled to the full palette of constitutional rights, as is any other adult, and the taking is improper because an adult has no duty to support said child, save for this duty enacted by the state for the sole purpose of making it possible to take the paying parent's income as satisfaction, rather than paying the parent just compensation.

Catch 22. I say, in the immortal words of Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes, that such a taking "goes too far," and as such, it is unconstitutional and must be struck down.

[POC]

Thanks soc,

I think I could keep extrapilating, and possibly wear you down on other points, but you've already more than earned your retainer.

[socrateaser]

>In your opinion, does the federal statute that only requires
>child support guidelines to consider all of the NCP's income,
>but not necessarily the CP's income, violate the Equal
>Protection Clause within the Constitution?

Extremely doubtful. The equal protection clause only requires that a statute bear a reasonable relationship to a legitimate government interest, unless the impaired person is a suspect class (race, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sometimes age, gender). Here, the paying parent is classified by his/her being denied custody in an amount sufficient to cause the guidelines to require imposition of a child support award. This is not a traditionally suspect class, and no court is likely to create a new class for this circumstances, therefore the statute will be deemed constitutional if it is reasonably related to a legitimate state interest.

The state's interest is the child's welfare, and child support is a legitimate means of advancing the state's interest. Therefore, the statute does not violate the equal protection clause.

If, the statute were worded so that only men were subjected to being the paying parent, or, if you could show, that, as applied, the statute rarely was applied to women and when it was it was applied with far less certainty in the amount of the award, then you might be able to make a case that person's in such circumstances were being denied equal protection.

But, as a general rule there is no constitutional impairment as the result of ordering a parent to pay child support to a "minor" child. As for an adult child -- that's an entirely different matter, however my argument is that the impairment is found in the takings, rather in the equal protection clause.

[POC]

The equal protection clause only requires
>that a statute bear a reasonable relationship to a legitimate
>government interest, unless the impaired person is a suspect
>class

1) I wasn't so much focusing on the plight of NCP's as a protected class. I realize that by and large no one cares about them. But, is it reasonable that income of NCP's would be considered beneficial to a child, but that income of CP's should not be considered for the benefit of the child?

2) In the case described, there was no CP or NCP, as it was joint physical custody. As such, does that violate the Equal Protection Clause?

>The state's interest is the child's welfare, and child support
>is a legitimate means of advancing the state's interest.
>Therefore, the statute does not violate the equal protection
>clause.

3) In this case, there was no claim that the children were being deprived. But, the state seemed to be saying that the children would benefit from one parent staying at home. Does the state's interest in the child's welfare extend beyond assuring that the child's needs are met?

my argument is that the impairment
>is found in the takings, rather in the equal protection
>clause.

4) So, does this mean that you did agree that it is a public taking for a public interest?

[socrateaser]

>>1) I wasn't so much focusing on the plight of NCP's as a
>protected class. I realize that by and large no one cares
>about them. But, is it reasonable that income of NCP's would
>be considered beneficial to a child, but that income of CP's
>should not be considered for the benefit of the child?

This is irrelevant. The constitutional analyze doesn't require that every sentence and phrase in a statute be reasonable, only that the statutory language have a rational connection to the child's interests. It is reasonable (arguable, but reasonable) that having a parent forgo work in preference to raising a child. Therefore, the discrimination between noncustodial and custodial parents is permissible, even though it may be unfair and even poor legislative logic, because it is, at least, reasonably related to the state's interest in the child's welfare.

>2) In the case described, there was no CP or NCP, as it was
>joint physical custody. As such, does that violate the Equal
>Protection Clause?

That's an interesting argument. If true, then the parents are actually members of the same class, and therefore, the government's unequal treatment might indeed be not reasonably related, because there is no reason why the father should not be permitted to work less in order to devote more time to the child. However, this is not what the father requested -- he requested to pay less money, not to be permitted to work less, so, on this theory, equal protection only applies when persons are not treated similarly in similar circumstances. The court is not actually treating the parents dissimilarly, because the circumstances are not similar. Therefore equal protection doesn't apply.
>

>3) In this case, there was no claim that the children were
>being deprived. But, the state seemed to be saying that the
>children would benefit from one parent staying at home. Does
>the state's interest in the child's welfare extend beyond
>assuring that the child's needs are met?

For constitutional analysis purposes, the scope of the State's interest is irrelevant. The State has a compelling interest in its children's welfare, so the State may craft legislation to advance that interest, as long as the legislation does not interfere with fundamental rights or is so irrational that no reasonable person would believe that the statute advanced the state's interest in its children.

>4) So, does this mean that you did agree that it is a public
>taking for a public interest?

A parent has a legal duty that has existed since the beginning of time to support his/her minor children. The taking of a parent's income to pay the child satisfies the parent's duty and therefore is just compensation.

The duty to support one's ADULT child's college education has existed for about 10 years, and is not universal even among the several States. In effect, the State has created a duty, so that it can "take" the paying parent's income to satisfy the created duty.

If such state regulatory enactments are constitutional, then the takings clause protection of the constitution is dissolved, because, all the state need do is enact a duty and then take a person's property to satisfy the enacted duty. So, for example, the state enacts legislation confirming Marx's original dictum "From each according to his ability, to each according to their needs." Having done this, it is now permissible to take the property of any person and give it to any other in satisfaction of the duty enacted, and the state has just enacted a totalitarian state against the prohibition of the 5th Amendment demanding that just compensation be paid for any taking.

The state cannot have it both ways -- either the child is a minor, under the control and custody of his/her parents, and therefore, the state has a compelling interest in the child's welfare and the parent owes the child a duty that has existed since time immemorial to support that child, in which case the taking is proper, or the child is an adult entitled to the full palette of constitutional rights, as is any other adult, and the taking is improper because an adult has no duty to support said child, save for this duty enacted by the state for the sole purpose of making it possible to take the paying parent's income as satisfaction, rather than paying the parent just compensation.

Catch 22. I say, in the immortal words of Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes, that such a taking "goes too far," and as such, it is unconstitutional and must be struck down.

[POC]

Thanks soc,

I think I could keep extrapilating, and possibly wear you down on other points, but you've already more than earned your retainer.