The Loss of the Right to a Trial by Jury: Child Support and Divorce Cases in America

[kahless]

Some people think it is "for the children" when really it is for the greed of states and local governments that profit from the federal incentives. The federal incentives drive the system through federal payments to states. The more divorces, and the higher the child-support guidelines are set and enforced (no matter how unreasonable), the more money the state bureaucracy collects from the feds.

I stumbled upon this article below which is a good primer for those that are typically in disbelief at the complete loss of personal liberties for one parent after a divorce.

The Loss of the Right to a Trial by Jury: Child Support and Divorce Cases in America
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/01/07...y-child-support-and-divorce-cases-in-america/

the issue of harm or an innocent person’s rights is not allowed under statist divorce. Instead one parent, overwhelmingly male, is judged to be lacking in parenting skill – in relation to the other parent, overwhelmingly female – resulting in:

1.Punishment without wrongdoing (Eighth Amendment),
2.Loss of parental rights (First Amendment),
3.Loss of the right to a trial by jury.
4.Arbitrary restrictions on personal liberties,
5.Negatively impacting the pursuit of Happiness,
6.Made to pay child support without the right to question that the money is going for necessities (Due Process – Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment), and
7.Made to work to their full potential so as to maximize the child support paid (Thirteenth Amendment),

With federal incentives based on child support collections, the state looks for every way to destroy families to generate revenue. Individual rights usurped, state imposed peonage/slavery, and families destroyed to feed the state’s need for money. As a result, fit parents are reduced to involuntary servitude, stripped of their wealth, and deprived of their children so that the state and the artificial class of custodial parents can financially benefit

 

[jkr]

I cannot breed until I can raise my children

 

[MsDoodahs]

thanks for posting this.

 

[lynnf]

a little more background

as a victim of this system, I thank you for the post. I can attest to much of the content.

and I only got a light case of the abuse, many others get the full force of it.

unfortunately, the seeds of some of this come from the divorce cases in the 30s and 40s in California, where a wife wanted out of a marriage but the only way to get out would be proof of adultery. so while the husband was on a business trip, they would pay a girl in sexy lingerie to get into the husband's room while he was preparing for bed and have a photographer pop in to get pictures of the two in their undies. pictures don't lie, do they?

voila - grist for the divorce mill.

I always wonder about the others out there that are suffering from this situation, but almost no one sees it. kind of like in space, no one can hear you scream.

Alec Baldwin even wrote a book about some of this, I think.

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

lynn

 

[moostraks]

Some people think it is "for the children" when really it is for the greed of states and local governments that profit from the federal incentives. The federal incentives drive the system through federal payments to states. The more divorces, and the higher the child-support guidelines are set and enforced (no matter how unreasonable), the more money the state bureaucracy collects from the feds.

I stumbled upon this article below which is a good primer for those that are typically in disbelief at the complete loss of personal liberties for one parent after a divorce.

The Loss of the Right to a Trial by Jury: Child Support and Divorce Cases in America
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/01/07...y-child-support-and-divorce-cases-in-america/

Good grief I can't even get through the first introductory paragraph without vomiting.
"Child support is a Common Law punishment which now imposes slavery and punishment without wrongdoing upon one divorcing parent and lack any of the Common Law protections which provided Due Process to the accused; although, the accused these days is deemed guilty by the state of lacking some parenting ability, not abuse or abandonment per the Common Law requirements"

Sounds like another article to be spewed by abusive spouses so they can claim victimization. Want to try slavery? For the priviledge of the other spouse being completely responsible for all the physical and emotional welfare of the minor children brought into this world by 2 parents the supposedly enslaved spouse pays approximately 15-35% of income depending on the number of children usually calculated on net not gross income and giving special circumstances for lower wages.

Then the supposedly enslaved person can play whatever shenanigans they like to subvert this ruling by hiding income or refusing to pay leaving the custodial parent to hire an attorney to enforce the ruling. The entire time never denying the non-custodial parent rights to visitation despite their lack of dedication to provide the meager amount required by law. Custodial parents are always providing more than non-custodial parents by the sheer fact that they are responsible for shelter and daily upkeep never relevant to a percentage of their wages earned.

Don't want to get screwed on child support then find a state with the most conducive environment to keeping the spoils of your work and acknowledge your selfishness outright by telling those you have sex with you will do whatever it takes to avoid having to provide for your progeny. Or don't have sex until you find someone you can trust even if you can no longer remain in a committed relationship with them.(ie only have sex with someone who you could count on to help bury a body ya know??)

 

[MelissaWV]

It's not "for the children," no. A lot of moms get custody that really shouldn't. A lot of guys get saddled with a ridiculous amount of child support they're forced to pay out, even though they made no conscious choice to have children. The mom, on the other hand, chose to keep the baby. There are long waiting lists of potential parents who'd love to adopt, but she kept the child. There is now a financial incentive to keep an unwanted pregnancy, and there is generally very little oversight of that money once the poor custodial parent receives it.

Divorce is actually far worse, because no such "for the children" heartstrings exist to be tugged. If one spouse was working, then they're supposed to pay out the nose for the other spouse to "maintain that lifestyle" after the divorce. Of course, it doesn't matter that the "lifestyle" must now be maintained on two fronts. Half and half, folks; even if one spouse never lifted a finger to make the money. The assumption is that spouse must have done SOMEthing outstanding to merit half the other spouse's wages. Please.

So many assumptions, so much nosing into our business by the Government. Who can blame them? It's big business, justified by anecdotal sob stories and anachronistic legislation.

 

[sratiug]

Good grief I can't even get through the first introductory paragraph without vomiting.
"Child support is a Common Law punishment which now imposes slavery and punishment without wrongdoing upon one divorcing parent and lack any of the Common Law protections which provided Due Process to the accused; although, the accused these days is deemed guilty by the state of lacking some parenting ability, not abuse or abandonment per the Common Law requirements"

Sounds like another article to be spewed by abusive spouses so they can claim victimization. Want to try slavery? For the priviledge of the other spouse being completely responsible for all the physical and emotional welfare of the minor children brought into this world by 2 parents the supposedly enslaved spouse pays approximately 15-35% of income depending on the number of children usually calculated on net not gross income and giving special circumstances for lower wages.

Then the supposedly enslaved person can play whatever shenanigans they like to subvert this ruling by hiding income or refusing to pay leaving the custodial parent to hire an attorney to enforce the ruling. The entire time never denying the non-custodial parent rights to visitation despite their lack of dedication to provide the meager amount required by law. Custodial parents are always providing more than non-custodial parents by the sheer fact that they are responsible for shelter and daily upkeep never relevant to a percentage of their wages earned.

Don't want to get screwed on child support then find a state with the most conducive environment to keeping the spoils of your work and acknowledge your selfishness outright by telling those you have sex with you will do whatever it takes to avoid having to provide for your progeny. Or don't have sex until you find someone you can trust even if you can no longer remain in a committed relationship with them.(ie only have sex with someone who you could count on to help bury a body ya know??)

No one should have to pay to have idiots raise their children and teach them stupidity. My cousin's child was taken from his mother when she was pulled over on crack at 3 in the morning. He was forced to take drug tests and could only see his son on very occasional supervised visits for months. Now they gave the kid back to his crack head mother so he has to kiss her ass again.

The state must be completely removed from marriage.

 

[torchbearer]

the right to trial by jury is in criminal cases.

 

[MelissaWV]

the right to trial by jury is in criminal cases.

Yeah... the article itself is nutty and a bit insulting.

Force is force, and there's a lot wrong with the system, but saying that collecting child support from a parent, and forcing them to work a job at full potential (so they can't shirk child support by just working at McDonalds or something)... equating that with slavery and saying it violates the Amendment barring such... that's

 

[torchbearer]

Yeah... the article itself is nutty and a bit insulting.

Force is force, and there's a lot wrong with the system, but saying that collecting child support from a parent, and forcing them to work a job at full potential (so they can't shirk child support by just working at McDonalds or something)... equating that with slavery and saying it violates the Amendment barring such... that's

well, the only valid argument would be that it is creating a debtors prison of sorts.
one party owes the other party for taking care of their mutual child. that is a matter of debt.
to arrest someone for debt is wrong. and would fall under wrongful imprisonment and thus slavery.

 

[moostraks]

well, the only valid argument would be that it is creating a debtors prison of sorts.
one party owes the other party for taking care of their mutual child. that is a matter of debt.
to arrest someone for debt is wrong. and would fall under wrongful imprisonment and thus slavery.

Failure to provide for ones children is the crime not the debt. Same as leaving a child unattended before they can be self-responsible. The reason most folks view it as a debt is because one party, the custodial parent, has seen fit to provide the care so they don't lose the child to social services.

The person who abandons financial support of the child is no different than one who provides no physical or emotional care. They are a stranger with no vested interest and should be punished for abandonment the same as deserting a child to fend for themselves.

 

[moostraks]

No one should have to pay to have idiots raise their children and teach them stupidity. My cousin's child was taken from his mother when she was pulled over on crack at 3 in the morning. He was forced to take drug tests and could only see his son on very occasional supervised visits for months. Now they gave the kid back to his crack head mother so he has to kiss her ass again.

The state must be completely removed from marriage.

I agree with you re:state out of marriage. That said, abandoning a child should be a punishable crime with harsh consequences.

Your cousin should have chosen a better person to have sex with, as everyone suffers the consequences of their choices. Don't want to pay? Then don't play...

 

[torchbearer]

Failure to provide for ones children is the crime not the debt. Same as leaving a child unattended before they can be self-responsible. The reason most folks view it as a debt is because one party, the custodial parent, has seen fit to provide the care so they don't lose the child to social services.

The person who abandons financial support of the child is no different than one who provides no physical or emotional care. They are a stranger with no vested interest and should be punished for abandonment the same as deserting a child to fend for themselves.

I see things from a sociological perspective, so your post has a lot of meat to it through my lenses.
Why is it a crime to leave a child?
Does that infer that the child is the property of the parent?
Does this not conflict with natural law?
Funny that the charges aren't "child endangerment", but the crime is "failure to pay child support". and- it seems that even though it is immoral to abandon resposibilities- in every case i've seen- a dead beat mom or dad does not equal a dead child. it equals a poor child. so it is a matter of not paying a debt. not a criminal case at all.

So another question under natural law(the law of self-ownership and private property rights)- Does a child have a RIGHT to your body? Does it have a RIGHT to your labor?

 

[kahless]

Yeah... the article itself is nutty and a bit insulting.

Force is force, and there's a lot wrong with the system, but saying that collecting child support from a parent, and forcing them to work a job at full potential (so they can't shirk child support by just working at McDonalds or something)... equating that with slavery and saying it violates the Amendment barring such... that's

I am amazed to see this kind of comment in a forum that promotes liberty. How is what I described not slavery or indentured servitude. The government forcing you to maintain a specific line of work to line someone elses pocket is slavery. The government should be completely out of marriage and the personal lives of its citizens period.

Parents are naturally equal parents to their children therefore automatic 50/50 joint custody should be the norm. Since both parents are maintaining a household no money should change hands. The system we have now clearly creates single parent households due to the incentive of one parent to receive child support well into adult hood.

Since one parent no longer has equal rights the other has the power of an authoritarian government behind them (slave master) to threaten use of force to obtain funds. The government does not care about the non-custodial parents ability to pay but rather they meet guideliness for life style support that has no basis in reality. If they fall behind through no fault of thier own the government punishes them with imprisonment and loss of professional licenses. This puts them even further behind, creates jobloss situations and possible physical harm to the non-custodial parent (including that of death and permant physical impairment at the hands of police or other prisoners). Again, placed in this situation through no fault of their own.

These circumstances the government created that deny the non-custodial parent liberty, as well as creating single parent households and further create a situation of where one parent is unable to support a child.

Statistics have proven the majority of divorced parents support their children and make every effort to stay in their lives. Of course there always some dead beats but that is no reason for millions of honest hard working non-custodial parents to have to live in fear of government if a job loss occurs or are unable to maintain an "expected" income (especially in this economy).

Dead beats are not the norm. It is honest people being threatened and victimized by a fascist government through no fault of thier own is the norm in this country.

 

[moostraks]

I see things from a sociological perspective, so your post has a lot of meat to it through my lenses.
Why is it a crime to leave a child?
Does that infer that the child is the property of the parent?
Does this not conflict with natural law?
Funny that the charges aren't "child endangerment", but the crime is "failure to pay child support". and- it seems that even though it is immoral to abandon resposibilities- in every case i've seen- a dead beat mom or dad does not equal a dead child. it equals a poor child. so it is a matter of not paying a debt. not a criminal case at all.

So another question under natural law(the law of self-ownership and private property rights)- Does a child have a RIGHT to your body? Does it have a RIGHT to your labor?

I think the charge depends on the prosecutor and I know you can get them for abandonment for not showing for visitation if they want to go after the dead beat person. (little fyi for anyone involved with a loser...)

Considering abortion, isn't the child parental property from that aspect?( Not advocating for/against merely stating current mindset of society)

Just because one parent provides the support does not negate the deadbeats failure to provide as being an endangering scenario. They have made a choice to abandon care and as such should be held accountable. (numerous possibilities imo of how to accomplish this namely begin by loss of visitation and parental rights)

If a child is left behind in a grocery store, then the state takes over care, therefore the child would not be dead but a crime of abandonment occurred and there would be numerous consequences. Generally non-paying parents continue to enjoy priviledges until the custodial parent can afford to get a good attorney to bring charges up.(not easy when you are providing sole support of the minor children) If the custodial parent does not abide by visitation orders they are held in contempt. Who would let a child go off with the parent who left them alone in a grocery store????

IMO the charges are not steep enough for child support issues currently.

Regarding natural law you would have to have a society with a completely different ethical perspective than the current one we reside in. Natural law is based upon a certain amount of respect for others and self-respect/responsibility. This is where knowing whom you have sex with and trusting them alleviates the mess many find themselves in with deadbeats. (can you tell I speak from experience???lol!!!)

As for a child's right to the parents body- my perspective is yes to a certain extent. I made a choice as an adult to have sex and as such am accountable to the results of my actions. I breastfed- all of my children- and as such until they were no longer nursing they had a right to my breasts when hungry or I had to make suitable arrangements to provide otherwise. One child would not take a bottle-ever, and so I was limited until she weaned as she was too immature to reason with regarding this issue. Again, I made the choice to breastfeed and so was accountable for having established her feeding needs.

An adult child is not entitled to their parents fruit of their labor, but until a minor is of age they are not able to be self-supporting. So as such they are entitled to a parent's labor (financially and emotionally) in a manner according to the age of the child. Once again, the intial action of sex results in the consequence of children.

 

[torchbearer]

I think the charge depends on the prosecutor and I know you can get them for abandonment for not showing for visitation if they want to go after the dead beat person. (little fyi for anyone involved with a loser...)

Considering abortion, isn't the child parental property from that aspect?( Not advocating for/against merely stating current mindset of society)

Just because one parent provides the support does not negate the deadbeats failure to provide as being an endangering scenario. They have made a choice to abandon care and as such should be held accountable. (numerous possibilities imo of how to accomplish this namely begin by loss of visitation and parental rights)

If a child is left behind in a grocery store, then the state takes over care, therefore the child would not be dead but a crime of abandonment occurred and there would be numerous consequences. Generally non-paying parents continue to enjoy priviledges until the custodial parent can afford to get a good attorney to bring charges up.(not easy when you are providing sole support of the minor children) If the custodial parent does not abide by visitation orders they are held in contempt. Who would let a child go off with the parent who left them alone in a grocery store????

IMO the charges are not steep enough for child support issues currently.

Regarding natural law you would have to have a society with a completely different ethical perspective than the current one we reside in. Natural law is based upon a certain amount of respect for others and self-respect/responsibility. This is where knowing whom you have sex with and trusting them alleviates the mess many find themselves in with deadbeats. (can you tell I speak from experience???lol!!!)

As for a child's right to the parents body- my perspective is yes to a certain extent. I made a choice as an adult to have sex and as such am accountable to the results of my actions. I breastfed- all of my children- and as such until they were no longer nursing they had a right to my breasts when hungry or I had to make suitable arrangements to provide otherwise. One child would not take a bottle-ever, and so I was limited until she weaned as she was too immature to reason with regarding this issue. Again, I made the choice to breastfeed and so was accountable for having established her feeding needs.

An adult child is not entitled to their parents fruit of their labor, but until a minor is of age they are not able to be self-supporting. So as such they are entitled to a parent's labor (financially and emotionally) in a manner according to the age of the child. Once again, the intial action of sex results in the consequence of children.

and at what age does the child not have a right to his parent's body and labor?

 

[moostraks]

I am amazed to see this kind of comment in a forum that promotes liberty. How is what I described not slavery or indentured servitude. The government forcing you to maintain a specific line of work to line someone elses pocket is slavery. The government should be completely out of marriage and the personal lives of its citizens period.

Parents are naturally equal parents to their children therefore automatic 50/50 joint custody should be the norm. Since both parents are maintaining a household no money should change hands. The system we have now clearly creates single parent households due to the incentive of one parent to receive child support well into adult hood.

Since one parent no longer has equal rights the other has the power of an authoritarian government behind them (slave master) to threaten use of force to obtain funds. The government does not care about the non-custodial parents ability to pay but rather they meet guideliness for life style support that has no basis in reality. If they fall behind through no fault of thier own the government punishes them with imprisonment and loss of professional licenses. This puts them even further behind, creates jobloss situations and possible physical harm to the non-custodial parent (including that of death and permant physical impairment at the hands of police or other prisoners). Again, placed in this situation through no fault of their own.

These circumstances the government created that deny the non-custodial parent liberty, as well as creating single parent households and further create a situation of where one parent is unable to support a child.

Statistics have proven the majority of divorced parents support their children and make every effort to stay in their lives. Of course there always some dead beats but that is no reason for millions of honest hard working non-custodial parents to have to live in fear of government if a job loss occurs or are unable to maintain an "expected" income (especially in this economy).

Dead beats are not the norm. It is honest people being threatened and victimized by a fascist government through no fault of thier own is the norm in this country.

Your statistics do not match those I have been exposed to and a funny thing about statistics is they must be viewed through the lense of the individual polling (see f-u-frank threads).

50/50 custodial split would be great if there wasn't a person with needs involved. How would you like to spend your life trying to remember what home you were to return to according to the day of the week? How about which school you would attend? It is incredibly immature to view life through what the adult is entitled to regarding visitation, but rather what is in the best interest of the child who has not asked for the seperation to occur.

Again, someone who is incapable of having an amicable seperation is merely suffering from their consequences of choosing an improper person to be involved with in the first place. Own it and move on or wallow in self-pity but don't punish those who had no part of the adult choices with a life of misery. Someone has to be the grown up and do what is in the best interest of the children. Placing the blame on the government for making someone do what should come naturally is ridiculous.

 

[moostraks]

and at what age does the child not have a right to his parent's body and labor?

Depends on the age...

If you are attached by an umbilical cord then you get housing internally. If you have teeth you can be weaned. Children under 18 aren't allowed to work a 40 hour work week so they cannot be self-sustaining financially. So the parent is responsible for all primary needs until the age of majority...

 

[torchbearer]

Depends on the age...

If you are attached by an umbilical cord then you get housing internally. If you have teeth you can be weaned. Children under 18 aren't allowed to work a 40 hour work week so they cannot be self-sustaining financially. So the parent is responsible for all primary needs until the age of majority...

what is the age of majority?

 

[kahless]

They have made a choice to abandon care and as such should be held accountable. (numerous possibilities imo of how to accomplish this namely begin by loss of visitation and parental rights)

In reality 99% of cases non-custodial parents that do not meet child support requirement did not make a choice to abandon care. The government sets a life style guideline and if the non-custodial parent is even one dollar short they are considered in contempt. This even if it is of no fault of their own such as job loss, pay cuts, illness, etc. Does not matter if the non-custodial parent is providing shelter, clothing and food. If they are a dollar short they are in contempt for that money going to the custodial parent that requires no accountability.

Generally non-paying parents continue to enjoy priviledges until the custodial parent can afford to get a good attorney to bring charges up.(not easy when you are providing sole support of the minor children)

This is outright false information. All the custodial parent has to do is fill out a piece of paper. The federal and state government have all kinds of programs so the custodial does not have to spend a dime to collect support. The non-custodial parent typically has to pay for the lawyer and court fees while the custodial gets a free ride on the taxpayers dime.

If the custodial parent does not abide by visitation orders they are held in contempt.

This is one of the biggest grievances of the non-custodial parent movement since it mostly never happens.

IMO the charges are not steep enough for child support issues currently.

You lose your job, you get sick or get a pay cut you fear for your life because the government is threatening you with prison. What a great way to live and have to go to sleep with thinking about every night. You think that is not enough.

There are many documented cases where people are dieing in the hospital ended up with warrants for arrest over this since they were unable to pay. This is happening all over America as we speak but never reported by the media. The only time I remember the media covering it is when we had an American soldier in Gulf War I captured and held by Saddam Hussien. After he was released and returned to the states he was arrested for not sending that child support check while being held by Saddam Hussien.

An adult child is not entitled to their parents fruit of their labor, but until a minor is of age .

In some states this goes well into the childs 20s.