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

[kahless]

no-claiming being forced to be responsible to ones children is slavery is dramatics...stop putting words in my mouth.

Here are so simple facts you continue to ignore.

1. Forced separation from your childen without a trial with no wrong doing.
2. Forced to pay money to another person against your will that does not require any accountability that is used for the child. (all too often not leaving the ncp enough money to care for the child since the cp did not use the funds for the child)
3. Forced to work in a profession against your will since the government dictates that profession is in the best interests of the child due to ability to earn.

Sounds like slavery to me and if not slavery clearly breaks the basics of our constitution. Not to mention a system that increases the risk of child neglect.

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),

I do care about children and think that if there are two stable parents then 50/50 split is the way to go with the home to be maintained for the children and the adults leave on their 50% time off. Don't assume anything with me as I told you previously we agree to some extent.

I just don't buy into the drama you espouse regarding all these well intentioned individuals who are hospitalized and can't pay. The fact that they are not able to arbitrate out of court is the result of under estimating the need to only have a relationship with stable people you can trust. You keep ignoring that the problem begins somewhere other than where you propose it does. The court only intervenes when someone demands them to and when two people are unable to cooperate on their own.

FACT: If you are I were put in the system right now, lost our job and did not have any savings we would quickly be in contempt and a warrant would be issued for our arrest.

It is a system that has been easily abused also. For example to seek revenge on any American right now all that is needed is a name and address regardless of whether that person has a child and no regard if the person named is the biological father of the child. You simply submit the request for support and without a trial the state starts the process. If the address is unknown the state will use the federal new hires database to track the person. The federal new hires database was established as part of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act which was a consequence of Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America".

So without a trial or a court order the state will contact the employer and begin immediate deduction of child support based upon that states guidelines. Without warning deductions begin. The person named can request a trial however that could take months meanwhile the perpetrator just wrecked havoc on someones life that may or may not have even fathered a child. If they refused to submit since they claim they never had sex with the person and switch jobs they are held in contempt and a warrant is then issued for their arrest.

This abuse scenario above has played out time and time again by those naming the wrong parent. There have also been some high profile cases where DNA evidence proved the person named was not the biological father. The court however claimed since they were already paying and it was best interests of the child they must continue to do so. California is such a lovely state.

 

[moostraks]

Here are so simple facts you continue to ignore.

1. Forced separation from your childen without a trial with no wrong doing.
2. Forced to pay money to another person against your will that does not require any accountability that is used for the child. (all too often not leaving the ncp enough money to care for the child since the cp did not use the funds for the child)
3. Forced to work in a profession against your will since the government dictates that profession is in the best interests of the child due to ability to earn.

Sounds like slavery to me and if not slavery clearly breaks the basics of our constitution. Not to mention a system that increases the risk of child neglect.

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),



FACT: If you are I were put in the system right now, lost our job and did not have any savings we would quickly be in contempt and a warrant would be issued for our arrest.

It is a system that has been easily abused also. For example to seek revenge on any American right now all that is needed is a name and address regardless of whether that person has a child and no regard if the person named is the biological father of the child. You simply submit the request for support and without a trial the state starts the process. If the address is unknown the state will use the federal new hires database to track the person. The federal new hires database was established as part of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act which was a consequence of Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America".

So without a trial or a court order the state will contact the employer and begin immediate deduction of child support based upon that states guidelines. Without warning deductions begin. The person named can request a trial however that could take months meanwhile the perpetrator just wrecked havoc on someones life that may or may not have even fathered a child. If they refused to submit since they claim they never had sex with the person and switch jobs they are held in contempt and a warrant is then issued for their arrest.

This abuse scenario above has played out time and time again by those naming the wrong parent. There have also been some high profile cases where DNA evidence proved the person named was not the biological father. The court however claimed since they were already paying and it was best interests of the child they must continue to do so. California is such a lovely state.

not going point by point on this as you have too much hate and energy and I am quite frankly not on the same page as you as we disagree where the problem begins:
FACT: You chose the wrong person to have sex with if the rest of your scenario comes true above
FACT:You can have a child and not involve the system
FACT:some situations you cannot extricate yourself from easily and must suffer some hardship

Moral of the story:abstinence or know the state laws and be prepared for a long term connection to anyone with whom you choose to have sex.

If you drink and drive bad things might happen. If you have sex the same thing could be said. No one makes someone drink and drive and they don't deserve compassion when bad stuff happens. If you have sex I say the same thing applies. You choose to have sex and you choose whom to have it with so accept responsibilty for the problems that may follow.

 

[kahless]

not going point by point on this as you have too much hate

Posting facts does not equal hate. But yes I like most other people here do hate to see peoples constitutional rights violated whether it is this issue or the many other violations we see posted in this forum on a daily basis.

and energy and I am quite frankly not on the same page as you as we disagree where the problem begins:


FACT: You chose the wrong person to have sex with if the rest of your scenario comes true above
FACT:You can have a child and not involve the system
FACT:some situations you cannot extricate yourself from easily and must suffer some hardship

Moral of the story:abstinence or know the state laws and be prepared for a long term connection to anyone with whom you choose to have sex.

If you drink and drive bad things might happen. If you have sex the same thing could be said. No one makes someone drink and drive and they don't deserve compassion when bad stuff happens. If you have sex I say the same thing applies. You choose to have sex and you choose whom to have it with so accept responsibilty for the problems that may follow.

I agree with you on the above with the exception that the government however does not have a right to punish those for what you describe. The intention of the laws is suppossed to be in the best interests of the child. I have demonstrated they are in fact not in the best interests of the child or anyone for that matter. Not the parents, the child or the taxpayers. The only ones benefiting here are the special interest groups, lawyers and government that feeds at the trough.

By your own words you chose to have sex with the wrong person and if you were the non-custodial parent things could have been allot different for you. Regardless of your decision I believe your constitutional rights should not be violated for that choice nor anyones for that matter.

btw - you know who else is benefiting believe or not, the military industrial complex. Companies like Lockheed Martin and Northrup Grumman are making a fortune on providing the collection and people tracking services for states and federal government. No surprises here I suppose.

 

[giddyup]

Pardon me for being a bit green on the whole concept of Libertarianism, but from what I've gleaned so far, isn't the idea that we need less government involvement in interpersonal matters?

I won't get into the intricacies of who I believe is right and wrong in terms of responsibility, child support, etc. I've lived both sides of the coin and still believe that at the heart of the matter, the power of the family court is being misused repeatedly. Power it should not even have. A civil court should not have the power to essentially prosecute individuals without due process and turn a failure of social responsibility (caring for ones children after divorce) into a crime. Period.

This guy is a prime example of the failings of the family court system:

http://www.thepsychoexwife.com/

His other blog is a nice source of information on family law news and stories from across the country:

http://www.mrcustodycoach.com/blog/

And no one has even mentioned the MEN who have been emotionally and physically abused by their partners and are then kept from their children while being forced to pay child support?

http://shrink4men.wordpress.com

It sounds like what you are saying moostraks is that it is okay that these laws exist because they've benefited many people like you, even though in (many many) other situations the family court violates the civil liberties of individuals (usually the non-custodial caregiver). You seem to be justifying the violation of their civil liberties simply because they should have chosen a better partner or never had kids with their ex. Am I misunderstanding something here about you... or the idea of personal liberty?

 

[MelissaWV]

Pardon me for being a bit green on the whole concept of Libertarianism, but from what I've gleaned so far, isn't the idea that we need less government involvement in interpersonal matters?

I won't get into the intricacies of who I believe is right and wrong in terms of responsibility, child support, etc. I've lived both sides of the coin and still believe that at the heart of the matter, the power of the family court is being misused repeatedly. Power it should not even have. A civil court should not have the power to essentially prosecute individuals without due process and turn a failure of social responsibility (caring for ones children after divorce) into a crime. Period.

...

It sounds like what you are saying moostraks is that it is okay that these laws exist because they've benefited many people like you, even though in (many many) other situations the family court violates the civil liberties of individuals (usually the non-custodial caregiver). You seem to be justifying the violation of their civil liberties simply because they should have chosen a better partner or never had kids with their ex. Am I misunderstanding something here about you... or the idea of personal liberty?

Nope, you're not being green at all. A civil court appears to have every right to impose damages blanketly for the ultimate crime of "having sex with the wrong person." Mind you, people don't tend to know it's "the wrong person" right away, nor is the "right person" punished by these civil matters (as various of us have posted examples), but details details.

Could some civil recourse be justified on the basis of the kind of "contract" that spouses have with one another, or a parent with their children? Sure. That's not what happens now. What happens now is a race to court (if you file the other person is unfit, before they file that you're unfit, you get the benefit of the doubt most times)... and bargaining with the kids as pawns. Among other things.

 

[moostraks]

Pardon me for being a bit green on the whole concept of Libertarianism, but from what I've gleaned so far, isn't the idea that we need less government involvement in interpersonal matters?

I won't get into the intricacies of who I believe is right and wrong in terms of responsibility, child support, etc. I've lived both sides of the coin and still believe that at the heart of the matter, the power of the family court is being misused repeatedly. Power it should not even have. A civil court should not have the power to essentially prosecute individuals without due process and turn a failure of social responsibility (caring for ones children after divorce) into a crime. Period.

This guy is a prime example of the failings of the family court system:

http://www.thepsychoexwife.com/

His other blog is a nice source of information on family law news and stories from across the country:

http://www.mrcustodycoach.com/blog/

And no one has even mentioned the MEN who have been emotionally and physically abused by their partners and are then kept from their children while being forced to pay child support?

http://shrink4men.wordpress.com

It sounds like what you are saying moostraks is that it is okay that these laws exist because they've benefited many people like you, even though in (many many) other situations the family court violates the civil liberties of individuals (usually the non-custodial caregiver). You seem to be justifying the violation of their civil liberties simply because they should have chosen a better partner or never had kids with their ex. Am I misunderstanding something here about you... or the idea of personal liberty?

What I don't think people are hearing is that Liberty is based upon freedom through responsibilty. That we get the government we embrace on this issue by using its services. The emphasis seems to be constantly ignoring the conditions and NUMEROUS choices which cause one to be in the predicament. As well as unbridled selfishness towards ones children under the guise of entitlement of the adult to absolve themselves of responsibility at will due to the adult's rights. No different imo than abortion advocates that ignore the obvious.

Could we not use this argument to rationalize repercussions for any action which we choose with ramifications afterwards? Where do we draw the line for reasonable standards? Well depends on how much of an anarchist you are I guess...

OP is trying to make it seem that the state will seek out parents, the cost of support is completely unreasonable, custodials fritter the money away on something other than child related expenses, and that numerous choices don't abound to cause one to be fighting the state for respect.

I offered my experience that the time to change the situation is well prior to being involved in the system. That you have to take numerous steps to be in their claws. Furthermore undiscussed so far once you get in their grasp you have numerous ways to fight the situation:hire a better attorney than the s.o., disappear, murder come to mind right offhand. All carry subsequent problems. Make your choices. Why is it that the arguments are mostly steering towards relinquish debt burdens rather than increase physical custody? As previously stated I believe the 50/50 split is most fair and this goes from income to dwelling.

However most of the arguments I have seen have been greed motivated, absurd what ifs, or tragic few and far betweens of war vets carted off to jail. Sorry but the drinking and driving analogy comes to mind here regarding the few and far betweens.

My experience and numerous studies show it is far more often that the non-custodial parent get off much easier than a custodial parent and that child support doesn't cover the fair 50% share the non-custodial parent should be ponying up. I couldn't even fathom how much child support loss is written off by custodial parents who don't have the ability to go after the non-custodials for the money they owe to the child. The children suffer from the seperation and loss of an intact household much less selfish people who don't want the burden of a weekly debt and the resentment spewed at them and the custodial parent.

What this thread has done in short order is restore my belief that a substantial portion of the liberty community is a group of selfish, bitter people who hear a manner in which they can try to make non-accountability and irresponsibilty seem like a positive character trait by advocating for no government standards on any issue.

 

[moostraks]

Posting facts does not equal hate. But yes I like most other people here do hate to see peoples constitutional rights violated whether it is this issue or the many other violations we see posted in this forum on a daily basis.



I agree with you on the above with the exception that the government however does not have a right to punish those for what you describe. The intention of the laws is suppossed to be in the best interests of the child. I have demonstrated they are in fact not in the best interests of the child or anyone for that matter. Not the parents, the child or the taxpayers. The only ones benefiting here are the special interest groups, lawyers and government that feeds at the trough.

By your own words you chose to have sex with the wrong person and if you were the non-custodial parent things could have been allot different for you. Regardless of your decision I believe your constitutional rights should not be violated for that choice nor anyones for that matter.

btw - you know who else is benefiting believe or not, the military industrial complex. Companies like Lockheed Martin and Northrup Grumman are making a fortune on providing the collection and people tracking services for states and federal government. No surprises here I suppose.

I couldn't be the non-custodial he was abusive and was an unfit parent. The only way I could be non-custodial was if I put them up for adoption. We paid the price of my decisions (including not putting them up for adoption) and while unpleasant as they were adversity builds character.

I was lost regarding your attitude when you pulled out the leftist socialist analogy for my experiences. So it has been down hill from there...

We disagree on the issue that forcing someone who cannot make arrangements without government intervention be obligated to pay. We will never agree because we have different life experiences that have formed our opinions. I cannot feel pity for people based upon your arguments. Reality is not the cases you describe of the few but the the volumes of children living in poverty due to non-paying non-custodial parents. We don't solve the problem by increasing the incentive to abandon children. Based upon your suggestions you would have parents flee in large numbers because of the lack of accountability and the impossible nature of raising children alone.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I really enjoy your thinking even if I disagree with you Torchbearer.

Childhood is not a man made idea it is a real concept. A child does not come equipped with the skills to be self sustaining and must evolve into adulthood. I spoke specifically previously of the lack of ability a child has due to law to be self sustaining. Nor can they enter into a relationship to own property upon which to hunt or grow. So until age of majority in the state of residency they cannot be self sustaining. Don't like it, then change the laws, but I doubt, no change that, I KNOW I would not want to live in a state run by under 18 year olds.

Contrary to your view of your 'childhood' you did not have the experience or emotional maturity a true adult should have nor should you be expected to have such. I have seen most people are not truly capable of rational maturity until sometime around 25 years old in the current society. One can force a bloom on a plant but they are more fragile than if the normal course of life took effect. Something will inevitably suffer.

If your childhood is as you say it was it explains why there is a certain defiance, authoritativeness, and independance in your nature. There is also something quietly unsettled. Child rearing is an art and not a science.

I disagree with the issue being treating them as children being the problem. I think it lies in the arbitrary nature of what we expect out of them and the herd treatment of government schools.

I will agree with you about Torchbearer.
Being an American is about that one self evident and unalienable Truth we can't deny. Anything outside of that Truth is the same exact flesh and blood in the lessor tyrannies outside of our nation's borders. Why would we have better business executives, lawyers or teachers than they? We don't. We just have a better political system based on a natural law.

 

[kahless]

moostraks, your last few posts are a complete distortion of what I posted. No where in any of my posts did I say that parents should not support their children, skirt their responsibility or abandon their children. That is just plain ridiculous and no longer warrants me to waste my time replying point by point to that complete and utter nonsense.

In fact I have stated the obvious problems with the system and alternatives that prevent children from living in poverty without the US violating multiple constitutional rights of its citizens.

Bottomline I have no idea why you support this movement when your posts in this thread condone complete violation of Constitutional rights and retribution of parents at the hands of government. Your beliefs are completely counter to the message liberty.

 

[Ethek]

moostraks, your last few posts are a complete distortion of what I posted. No where in any of my posts did I say that parents should not support their children, skirt their responsibility or abandon their children. That is just plain ridiculous and no longer warrants me to waste my time replying point by point to that complete and utter nonsense.

In fact I have stated the obvious problems with the system and alternatives that prevent children from living in poverty without the US violating multiple constitutional rights of its citizens.

Bottomline I have no idea why you support this movement when your posts in this thread condone complete violation of Constitutional rights and retribution of parents at the hands of government. Your beliefs are completely counter to the message liberty.

I would say I am equally bewildered with Moontraks view on use of force by the courts. Marriage is a voluntary contract of two people. It is entirely voluntary to stay in that contract. Both partners are equally responsible for their situation in life. Going into and coming out of any marriage, a situation might be better , or it might be worse. The trick is kids and them being introduced in the middle of a marriage.

Enormous benefit is to be had for the kids when both parents are available AND emotionally nurturing. When one of the two or both parties in the marriage 'agree' to end the relationship those opportunities present for the children are gone. Expecting a wage earner to pony up and simply not be around for the trouble they are worth amounts to involuntary servitude when force of state is involved. If money is the fix they are better off with wage earner anyway.

Both parties make a choice to enter into the contract of marriage, both chose to fulfill basic biologic desires, both chose to work or not to work, to keep wage earning skills current and to weight the cost of leaving the job market, to be involved or not involved with the raising of the children. Both choose to have the faculties to be there for a partner and meet the partners emotional needs forming a strong husband/wife bond, or not, and both choose to decide better opportunities of life lie outside of marriage. Those are the choices.

Its easy to blame. Someone is abusive, Someone is unengaged. Where is the blame for not being able to spot the shortcomings of a partner a woman chooses to parent with? People might want to date a partners parents for a while because that is the biggest clue on how emotionally equipped they are to be a spouse.

For every abusive asshole dad that the state calls out for the 'fraud' of getting poor naive mom to spread her legs before she finds out he would be a horrible farther there are an equal or greater number of men who are basically enslaved by a biased system to uncommitted, unmotivated, anxiety prone women . The fact that it happens even once deems that this is a matter unfit for the state to handle in any capacity


The kids will loose out for simple fact that there is only one parent when before there were two. A mom could swallow her pride and acknowledge that perhaps she cant financially support the kids and let the former partner raise them.

However, if its important for her to be with the kids its important enough for her as a mom raising them to advocate and do what she needs to do to, get a job instead of home schooling (sorry opportunities like that are lost when the marriage ended), get public involvement to showcase how big a looser husband is, petition his bosses, perhaps get the former husband some needed therapy via some circumvented route if they are too insecure about themselves, get themselves some therapy, or finally, she could just convince another man that she is worthwhile enough to take in and support with her former husbands children in tow.

The children will suffer when a marriage ends. The biggest blow to these kids 'opportunity' in life is that they suffer emotionally, concepts of security and dependency are torn apart. No amount of court direction, financial pittance or mandatory counseling is going to help that.

Tough choices for sure, but really, the state has no place.