Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression

Bob Whiteside wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
oups.com...

teachrmama wrote:
(edit)

Federal law sets timeframes for this and other CS related actions in Title
42 Chapter 7 Subchapter IV Part D Section 652(h). The state law for the
state where the CS order in question is located in Oregon Revised Statutes
416.419 Tribunals for establishment of paternity or for child support order
and ORS 416.422 Past support.

So, Bob....I no longer live in America, so perhaps you have a cite
showing some statute of limitations to collect back child support?

teachrmama wrote:
"Gini" wrote in message
news:IjuJg.2791$aQ4.1749@trndny06...

"teachrmama" wrote

"Hyerdahl" wrote

teachrmama wrote:


Fortunately, the courts are disagreeing with you more and more, Hy. =c)


In that case you need to present caselaw that shows all that. Where's
your cite?

Where is yours? Check it out--and prove it your way.
==
Yeah, legal research is what..$200 an hour?

I can hardly wait to read her results!!

You are the one insisting that there are limitations placed on back
support. You're the one who needs to prove it.

teachrmama wrote:
"Terri" wrote in message
. theremailer.net...
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, "Chris" wrote:

Then your claim that judges like to maintain what the couple themselves
put
into action is false. Consider: If a father "put into action" being with
his
child 24/7 prior to the legal proceeding then judges would support such
arrangement, according to YOUR claim. But they don't!

Hi--

In actuality this is generally true. Family law judges will usually stick
with what's already in place so as to not disrupt a child. If a child is
living with a particular parent, be it mother or father, the court will
seek to not make a radical change.

Terri
http://terrimadison.blogspot.com


Hmmmmmm.........ok....so if there are 2 working parents who spend equal
amounts of time with the child and take turns staying home when the child is
ill, then why do judges almost always award the mother physical custody and
the father visitation, rather than awarding shared custody?


The courts look at a variety of issues, like who does the unpaid work
for the child.
Nine times out of ten, the mother takes the child to school, shopping
for clothing, to the doctors, etc. etc. Plus, when people are in
hostile divorces, shared custody is not in the best interests of the
child.

"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
ups.com...

Bob Whiteside wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
oups.com...

teachrmama wrote:
(edit)

Federal law sets timeframes for this and other CS related actions in
Title
42 Chapter 7 Subchapter IV Part D Section 652(h). The state law for the
state where the CS order in question is located in Oregon Revised
Statutes
416.419 Tribunals for establishment of paternity or for child support
order
and ORS 416.422 Past support.

So, Bob....I no longer live in America, so perhaps you have a cite
showing some statute of limitations to collect back child support?

There is no statute of limitations on back child support. CS is a money
judgement that accrues monthly. While current support is being accrued each
money judgement is extended monthly until the support order has been
terminated. Once a CS order is terminated state money judgement law takes
over. Money judgements are valid for 7-10 years depending on the state's
judgement law. When a money judgement is nearing the end of the 7-10 year
validity period, they can be re-upped for an additional 7-10 timeframe. If
the judgement creditor chooses, an unsatisfied money judgement can be
extended forever.

"Gini" wrote in message
news:bquJg.4460$8Q6.4120@trndny01...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote

"Hyerdahl" wrote
........................

When did you stop beating your wife? :-) Name the state law hon.
I'll read it. Until then you're just a poofter.

Federal law sets timeframes for this and other CS related actions in
Title
42 Chapter 7 Subchapter IV Part D Section 652(h). The state law for the
state where the CS order in question is located in Oregon Revised
Statutes
416.419 Tribunals for establishment of paternity or for child support
order
and ORS 416.422 Past support.
==
Damn, Bob--You always ruin the fun.

Sorry. I got tired of reading all the misinformation and hearing the word
games being played. Teach was the only one who knew what she was talking
about and I assumed she didn't have easy access to cite the laws.

"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
oups.com...

teachrmama wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
oups.com...


(edit)

When did you stop beating your wife? :-) Name the state law hon.
I'll read it. Until then you're just a poofter.

Well, Dearie, I was there. I KNOW he was only assigned 2 years
arrearages.
I will see if I can find the law for you--but you can't trump my
experience
with you rather biased opinion no matter how much you may want to.

No one here can substantiate your person experience ....mama. That's
why laws are 'eversomuch' more reliable than mere personal
experiences.

That is any interesting point. One of the problems with family law is how
frequently pieces of it change. For instance, in this debate, CS arrearages
used to be set retroactively without any limits. It was whatever a judge
felt they could get away with on a case by case basis.

Then limits were placed on how far back CS arrearage orders could go. Most
states adopted a 2-3 year time limit.

Now most states limit retroactive orders to the date of the original court
filing.

When you listen to the anecdotes you hear versions of all three of those
laws and it is driven by the timeframe for the court's decision, which isn't
necessarily what the current law says when you read it.

"Terri" wrote in message
news:N9YQ5PYL38960.4804513889@anonymous...
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Terri" wrote in message
.theremailer.net...
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, "Chris" wrote:

Then your claim that judges like to maintain what the couple themselves
put
into action is false. Consider: If a father "put into action" being
with
his
child 24/7 prior to the legal proceeding then judges would support such
arrangement, according to YOUR claim. But they don't!

Hi--

In actuality this is generally true. Family law judges will usually
stick
with what's already in place so as to not disrupt a child. If a child
is
living with a particular parent, be it mother or father, the court will
seek to not make a radical change.

Terri
http://terrimadison.blogspot.com


Hmmmmmm.........ok....so if there are 2 working parents who spend equal
amounts of time with the child and take turns staying home when the child
is
ill, then why do judges almost always award the mother physical custody
and
the father visitation, rather than awarding shared custody?

Hi--

What are your cites that this "almost always" happens? I think that the
online forums are going to consist almost exclusively of the folks who
have
been slighted, and may not represent an accurate cross-section of all
cases.

The Federal Child Support Enforcement office has published a breakdown of
their client base. That is about the best cross-section, using the largest
sample, anyone could cite.

CSE says 85% of their clients receiving CS are mothers, 8% are fathers, and
7% are other relatives like aunts, uncles, and grandparents.


Disclaimer: I am not a parent--my background is legally based with
several
lawyers in the family. I would say that shared custody is not as likely
to
be a viable solution if the parents are going to be living some distance
apart. When we are talking about creating two households from one, often
one if not both of the divorcees will have to relocate significantly.

Do you believe that the legal system still practices gender bias?

YES. But they claim they don't. And when studies are undertaken by local
state bar associations into gender bias in the courts, they ignore family
law gender bias when looking into judicial bias.

"Hyerdahl" wrote
..........................

I dunno, Hy. Seems like all fathers are treated as criminals and have
their
wages garnished rather than trusting them to pay their child support.

Garnishing a parent's paycheck usually takes place when the payor has
been less than reliable already, no?
==
No. Garnishment is part of every new order unless both parents agree and the
judge
approves.

"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
ups.com...

teachrmama wrote:
"Gini" wrote in message
news:IjuJg.2791$aQ4.1749@trndny06...

"teachrmama" wrote

"Hyerdahl" wrote

teachrmama wrote:


Fortunately, the courts are disagreeing with you more and more, Hy.
=c)


In that case you need to present caselaw that shows all that.
Where's
your cite?

Where is yours? Check it out--and prove it your way.
==
Yeah, legal research is what..$200 an hour?

I can hardly wait to read her results!!

You are the one insisting that there are limitations placed on back
support. You're the one who needs to prove it.
==
It varies per state. You can find virtually all state statutes online now.
Or, you can
simply continue to sound foolish.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote

"Gini" wrote

"Bob Whiteside" wrote

"Hyerdahl" wrote
........................

When did you stop beating your wife? :-) Name the state law hon.
I'll read it. Until then you're just a poofter.

Federal law sets timeframes for this and other CS related actions in
Title
42 Chapter 7 Subchapter IV Part D Section 652(h). The state law for
the
state where the CS order in question is located in Oregon Revised
Statutes
416.419 Tribunals for establishment of paternity or for child support
order
and ORS 416.422 Past support.
==
Damn, Bob--You always ruin the fun.

Sorry. I got tired of reading all the misinformation and hearing the word
games being played. Teach was the only one who knew what she was talking
about and I assumed she didn't have easy access to cite the laws.
==
Well, I look at it this way--We've all spent years researching this stuff
and if someone comes along
who isn't informed and wishes to pretend they are, that's their problem. Let
them do their own
damned research (or continue to sound silly, foolish, whatever). The most
annoying are those who contend
they know it all because they "used to work for an attorney," or the most
recent--they "have lots of attorneys
in their family. Well, there's a law degree for ya, eh?