# This has to be reversed!



## tom67 (Oct 2, 2012)

Whether you are a man or a woman I would hope this outrages you as it does me.

Father sentenced to 6 months in jail for paying too much child support

Judge probably will send him to a for profit prison where she gets a cut.


----------



## whitehawk (Aug 14, 2012)

tom67 said:


> Whether you are a man or a woman I would hope this outrages you as it does me.
> 
> Father sentenced to 6 months in jail for paying too much child support
> 
> Judge probably will send him to a for profit prison where she gets a cut.




All l can say is , wtf ?
The world really has gone mad these days.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

My guess, from my experiences are that the state wants to collect the child support directly from his pay vie direct deposit from his employer. They know for certain they will get the amount unless his income changes drastically. The employer must also report any changes to his income, which can easily be monitored and controlled by the state. The state will keep in contact with the custodial parent and make certain payments are received. The state cannot force him to let them get take the money out of his pay unless he is behind on his payments. They used a loophole in the law, which is wrong, if not illegal. I am guessing the custodial spouse was complaining she wasn't receiving her payments on time and in a regular fashion. This is normal and will continue as the state takes over. 

In my state, the government puts all support payments into one account, *which I imagine collects interest or in some other way provides a means for some income for the state, county, or whatever*. That part is speculation and so is the rest of this, but I experienced much of this personally. The state will have issues at times, with paying the custodial parent on time. The custodial parent will complain about it and go to domestic relations. They will issue a new hearing and he will be dragged through the mud again. They will increase the child support, to justify bringing him in, if there is enough increase in his pay. 

Follow the money.


----------



## tom67 (Oct 2, 2012)

2ntnuf said:


> My guess, from my experiences are that the state wants to collect the child support directly from his pay vie direct deposit from his employer. They know for certain they will get the amount unless his income changes drastically. The employer must also report any changes to his income, which can easily be monitored and controlled by the state. The state will keep in contact with the custodial parent and make certain payments are received. The state cannot force him to let them get take the money out of his pay unless he is behind on his payments. They used a loophole in the law, which is wrong, if not illegal. I am guessing the custodial spouse was complaining she wasn't receiving her payments on time and in a regular fashion. This is normal and will continue as the state takes over.
> 
> In my state, the government puts all support payments into one account, *which I imagine collects interest or in some other way provides a means for some income for the state, county, or whatever*. That part is speculation and so is the rest of this, but I experienced much of this personally. The state will have issues at times, with paying the custodial parent on time. The custodial parent will complain about it and go to domestic relations. They will issue a new hearing and he will be dragged through the mud again. They will increase the child support, to justify bringing him in, if there is enough increase in his pay.
> 
> Follow the money.


He should have been properly served of the modification in the first place this "judge" should be suspended for this.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

He probably was. Something happened and they will find out why he should have received it, but it was his fault. You watch.


----------



## tom67 (Oct 2, 2012)

2ntnuf said:


> He probably was. Something happened and they will find out why he should have received it, but it was his fault. You watch.


If they keep the pressure on I hope this changes.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Sick, disgusting people these days


----------



## 2galsmom (Feb 14, 2013)

Here you go Tom.

snopes.com: Father Sentenced for Paying Too Much Child Support

Reversed.

He didn't pay ENOUGH!


----------



## Sandfly (Dec 8, 2013)

2galsmom said:


> Here you go Tom.
> 
> snopes.com: Father Sentenced for Paying Too Much Child Support
> 
> ...


OK so the headline was wrong, but then your conclusion is also wrong.

As your article says

he was jailed "for failing to pay child support, even though he was fully paid up." 

This is still screwed up - the sentence doesn't even make sense. 6 months in prison - I mean - really?


----------



## tom67 (Oct 2, 2012)

2galsmom said:


> Here you go Tom.
> 
> snopes.com: Father Sentenced for Paying Too Much Child Support
> 
> ...



I guess we got trolled that story didn't make sense.
Thanks.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Well, tom67, here's another crazy theory. He must continue to pay, even if he is up to date with payments. He cannot adjust the amount on his own. 

For example:

If he was paying on his own and added up all the months of support and kept giving a little extra each month so that for October, November and December, he would actually have paid(for the last three months) with the extra he paid from January through September, he would be in violation of the order.

They will not take into account, the extra money he sent, as part of the order. Because, the order called for him to send a certain amount each month. Technically, he'd be in violation of the order. 

Edit: (He could also be charged with non-payment of support and considered behind in his payments.)

That is spun in court to look like the husband didn't pay enough, and technically, he didn't.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

In some cases, the custodial parent will call the court to find out why they are getting more than what was ordered. The court, having experience with this, will tell the custodial parent not to worry, and consider it a gift. He must have had a little extra or something and just make certain they are getting the amount that was ordered, on time. 

The custodial parent will think the non-custodial is being nice. After all, they went through a hell of a divorce and maybe they have seen the light and are sorry? The courts know this and play right into these feelings.

When the payments stop, even though the full amount was paid for the year, the custodial parent still needs a regular payment, because they didn't save that extra, thinking it's a gift. Now, they call the court and are really angry. The court goes to work and gets what they wanted all along. I've known others who have gone through this. 

Don't get me wrong, I understand the position of the court and they are correct. They are also incorrect. They don't have to contact the non-custodial parent and don't have time to do so. If they did, in the beginning, they would know what is going on and could correct the issue. They could even modify the order or make the non-custodial parent aware that this is unacceptable and against the order(law). 

The person is foolish for doing it, but it does happen.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

It also plays right into the courts hands to get more money. If he can afford to pay extra for nine months, he can afford to pay that for the remaining three. His new order, once he's called back to court for his mistake, is increased.


----------



## 2galsmom (Feb 14, 2013)

Sandfly said:


> OK so the headline was wrong, but then your conclusion is also wrong.
> 
> As your article says
> 
> ...


It is not the prison sentence that does not make sense, it is the way the article is written, the video and article are biased that is why they do not make sense, key information is omitted on purpose.

Why is Fox the ONLY place you will see the story?

Because they are the only people spinning the story to piss off men.

Dad did not follow the court order, that much is clear.

At the very last minute he paid, but you can be jailed for not following the court order. Now. Dad says "I did not know" but that is his testimony for the camera. But is he lying? 

The reporters did not bother to investigate.

In addition, the mother incurred $3,000 legal fees that she incurred which he was ordered to pay.

Note they did not interview or show the mother, only him and his response is suspect. If he paid at the last minute and they were already set for court, was the mother notified in time? Then they were already due in court and she incurred the expenses that could NOT be avoided. If he showed up and said, I paid yesterday which the video suggests he paid at the last minute, then the mother is still SOL because she has to pay court fees and in this care attorney fees.

The article does not show what the court order was, it does not go into detail as to how he violated the court order. No where is an interview with the mother's attorney or the mother which is ESSENTIAL to writing a fair and balanced piece. It is vague and intentionally so to elicit emotional responses and outrage.

What needs to be reversed is shoddy unethical journalism.

I can tell you personally from experience, they do NOT throw fathers who do not pay support in jail frequently or easily if that is any consolation so this guy's story is very very fishy but Fox news does not care he suits their purpose and making people in America and now the UK angry.

Once again, you won't see this story ANYWHERE else, for a reason . . .


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

> I can tell you personally from experience, they do NOT throw fathers who do not pay support in jail frequently or easily



I agree with this. 

I just wanted to add that I don't disagree with what you have said in the rest. There isn't enough information. I tend to believe, from my own experiences, what I wrote. 

Courts do like to have control of dishing out the money. They use fear tactics to control the custodial parent. That's not to say that they are not true in some cases, but they use these tactics to manipulate and control. 

They have a negatively biased opinion of the non-custodial parent and use that to manipulate for control. It not only harms the already horrible relationship the two parents have, but also, in many cases, harms the relationship between parents and children.

It reinforces the beliefs of the custodial parent and the children, that the non-custodial parent does not love them, but when in court, the court acts as if it's a legal agreement only, and the custodial parent must pay and there is no connection to anything else. All else, for the children, "should" continue as if their lives were not much different than when the parents were combining the power of two incomes or the absence of needing to have separate dwelling units, which adds to expenses. 

This is so hard to explain, I'm going to just let it go. I don't think a person even could understand unless the financial situations were very similar. 

In the end, I don't want anyone to think I am of the opinion, this guy should not pay for his children's care. That's not my intention. I just know how things get so messed up by lawyers and the courts, that it's scary and ruinous to all involved.


----------



## 2galsmom (Feb 14, 2013)

And by the way, it was not "my" article.


----------



## lenzi (Apr 10, 2012)

2galsmom said:


> Dad did not follow the court order, that much is clear.
> 
> At the very last minute he paid, but you can be jailed for not following the court order. Now. Dad says "I did not know" but that is his testimony for the camera. But is he lying?
> 
> The reporters did not bother to investigate.


Exactly. Apparently he did not, at any time "pay too much in child support".

He was behind on support payments, and this went back almost a year. He also walked out of a support hearing.

Hard to believe his visitation and support were modified, and he had no idea. Every party to an action gets a copy of the order. They know they're being sued, and they get a copy of the decision. 

I don't get the feeling that this guy was an innocent victim of the system and an overbearing judge. 

There's more to this story than what was reported, that's for sure.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

lenzi said:


> There's more to this story than what was reported, that's for sure.


:iagree:


----------



## Chuck71 (Nov 5, 2012)

Tom.....this distortion is why I do not pay much heed to NBC, CBS,

ABC, CNN, or Fox. Each newscast has more slants than a WR

catching passes from Peyton. Most of the time if you read 

between the lines, the truth is in the story. Television is the 

masterpiece for spreading propaganda. Remember the Tylenol 

Poisoning thirty years ago in your area? Do some digging.....

there's something "out there"


----------

