Posted on 08/10/2002 10:54:19 AM PDT by chance33_98
Tennessee Child Support System Ruled Unconstitutional
08-09-2002
A Jackson appeals court says the state uses an unconstitutional system to calculate child support payments. The three-judge panel ruled today that a Memphis father deserves credit for two other children when payments are set for a third child. The state formula takes a higher percentage of the noncustodial parent's income for each child they must support. But it doesn't count children that parent is supporting in a current marriage. The impact of the ruling was not immediately clear on the state's child support system, which handles more than 350-thousand cases and collects about 375 (M) million dollars in support payments annually. The case that produced the ruling was Troy Allen Thompson versus Elisa Connell Hulbert.
Actually I find them rather informative. Since we will never hear about these cases from the "Media Elite", where else are we going to look? Personally I think the "Socialist" child support laws in this country need a big overhaul. After all it does take a 50/50 effort to bear and raise children. Not 10(woman)/90(man) as is so often drummed into us by the media.
It is unconstitutional. One of the findings that a judge has to make before he puts anyone in jail for failing to pay child support is that the defendant either:
1) Has the present ability to make the payment; or,
2) Would have the present ability to make the payment but for a deliberate or reckless suppressing of his income or assetts; or,
3) He had the ability to make the payment when it was due or since it became due, but failed to make the payment.
Notice that the entire step of the mother civilly suing the father for support is bypassed and rather than the mother being the party at interest, the state is now the party at interest. The state says "We created an unconstitutional wealth re-distribution scheme and now we're going to force YOU to pay for it at the point of a gun!" Sound familiar?
Sadly, because this ruling the child support statute in Tennessee will have to be revisited. With that comes the bad and well as the good. Given the Tenn legislature's greed, were I a noncustodial parent in that state I would hold on to my wallet.
I am sure many conventional credit card debtors would fail this test. Its all in the 'priorities' (bankruptcy sense). So this test is in effect, usless, dont you think?
A lot of what child support units have been doing is (to say the least) questionable. For instance:
In NJ, Welfare Boards ( which, in that state, are allowed to file child support actions on behalf of support recipients ) were filing against the "absent parent" (99.99% Male) in situations wherein welfare benefits had been paid out, but the parents had patched up their quarrels and re-united before an order for support had been entered. They were doing this as a matter of policy , rather than a matter of law, and they were hauling the reconciled fathers into court to enforce re-payment orders the court had never seen.
Finally, one father, who had enough money for a good lawyer,challenged the system..and won. Soon after that,several hundred illegal "orders" were abruptly set aside.
Generally speaking, I've noticed, unless the defendat has a lawyer with clout,the Family Court judges will go along with almost anything Welfare and/or the Support Collection agencies suggest.
Not the way it works. You work and do not pay child support. You have the money but hide it to avoid paying child support. That is fraud and thus you are jailed for a form of fraud. If you can prove you were and are unable to pay the child support then you are not jailed. Although this may leave you with precious little to live on.
Most people jailed have made real efforts to avoid paying child support. They could have paid but instead they paid for other things cars, boats, homes, new marriages etc. Many change their names move and make sure they get paid in cash. Some even refuse to take jobs they could get and live off a new spouces income. In all these cases these cases these people should go to jail.
Difference is the credit company can revoke credit. Once you have a child it can not be revoked for 18 - 24 years (depending on the state). Thus the credit card company can only revoke your card and destroy your credit. The State can not revoke the child and thus you can be jailed if you fail to support your child to the best of your ability (as the state defines your ability).
Guilty until proven innocent, IOW.
Any state that regards a 24-year-old as a "child" is in for some serious social problems.
Its not the credit I'm focusing on, its the debt. The credit is theirs to extend, the debt is yours to repay. My point was using that test, many people prior or during bankruptcy CAN make their payments. So if that is the test to get around constitution and put child support debtors in prison, it can also be used eventually to put credit card debtors in prison.
You mean we're still using Constitutions!?
What is this strange place called Tennessee.
Didn't you have to agree before your kids could be adopted (I presume they were adopted by your ex's new husband)?
Nonetheless, it sounds as though she is guilty of fraud. What struck me about your post, however, is that she did not allow you to see your kids for four years. Four long years. This could not have been healthy for your children, who must have felt deserted, and will never understand the manipulations and animosities of adults. This could not be easy for you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.