31 days after paying $10000 purge clause, I'm charged with contempt AGAIN.

DCSE must really be worried about the potential findings of a motion
I've made to determine the legality of interest they've chanrged to me
under my 1988 Order which was entered when Virginia law didn't permit
the assignment of interest to child support arrears.

Although I paid a $10,000 purge clause on June 6, 2005 to purge myself
of contempt for having paid more toward my accrued arrearage sooner
than it was due (less than two months after the same judge found me
"indigent" for the appointment of counsel, which I declined), I
received a notice by mail today that DCSE filed on July 7, 2005, a new
motion for rule to show cause charging me again with failure to obey a
court order to pay child support.

Perhaps I didn't tell the group, however, my daughter (who has been
asking me for money to pay for some medical bills and for a security
deposit for an apartment) advised me that my ex-wife used the $10,000
she received from the purge clause to give to her live-in paramour a
deposit on a brand new Harley Davidson.

This new motion, again, is signed by a non-attorney, I believe in
violation of 8.01-271.1 of the Code of Virginia. Upon written complaint
to the Virginia State Bar, they said it was OK for DCSE employees to
sign motions on behalf of DCSE -- although they couldn't point to a
specific section of the Virginia State Code to back that up.

Suggestions?

By the way, I got a copy of the judge's dismissal of contempt against
me that was signed on June 16 and mailed to me by the Court on July
8th...ONE DAY AFTER I WAS CHARGED WITH CONTEMPT AGAIN.

wrote in message
oups.com...
DCSE must really be worried about the potential findings of a motion
I've made to determine the legality of interest they've chanrged to me
under my 1988 Order which was entered when Virginia law didn't permit
the assignment of interest to child support arrears.

Although I paid a $10,000 purge clause on June 6, 2005 to purge myself
of contempt for having paid more toward my accrued arrearage sooner
than it was due (less than two months after the same judge found me
"indigent" for the appointment of counsel, which I declined), I
received a notice by mail today that DCSE filed on July 7, 2005, a new
motion for rule to show cause charging me again with failure to obey a
court order to pay child support.

Does VA have a law stating $10,000 is the maximum purge clause amount they
can assess? Perhaps DCSE is attempting to get you to pay the arrears by
going after you in blocks of $10,000 until they get the full amount owed.
You are obviously dead center in their collection sights.

A couple of comments - Most states only use purge clauses when a person has
access to funds or assets. The concept is a person with assets "holds the
keys to the jail and can let themselves out." It is the responsibility of
the CS obligor to show the court they do not have the ability to pay. By
paying the purge amount quickly you demonstrated access to assets. Until
you show real indigence the threat of jail and purge clauses to escape jail
will continue to haunt you.

What doesn't make sense is how a judge could find you indigent and eligible
to receive court appointed counsel, and then turn around an find you not
indigent by ordering the purge clause. I'd look at VA case law to see if
this inconsistency has ever been challenged and the outcome.


Perhaps I didn't tell the group, however, my daughter (who has been
asking me for money to pay for some medical bills and for a security
deposit for an apartment) advised me that my ex-wife used the $10,000
she received from the purge clause to give to her live-in paramour a
deposit on a brand new Harley Davidson.

It doesn't matter how the money was spent unless you can find a state law
allowing you to receive an accounting of how CS was used. Since what you
paid appears to be an arrearage amount, the court will most likely take the
position the $10,000 was a repayment for money she already spent on the
children.


This new motion, again, is signed by a non-attorney, I believe in
violation of 8.01-271.1 of the Code of Virginia. Upon written complaint
to the Virginia State Bar, they said it was OK for DCSE employees to
sign motions on behalf of DCSE -- although they couldn't point to a
specific section of the Virginia State Code to back that up.

Most state laws allow CS Administrators to initiate these court actions. In
practice the Administrator delegates their signature authority to people on
their staff. This issue is really tangential to the bigger issue of dealing
with what you owe and the application of interest on money applying
retroactively.

There is nothing throughout the ENTIRE Virginia State Code which even
remotely references purge clauses.DCSE I would think would have to
prove that I somehow violated an Order between June 16 when the final
order dismissing my contempt charge was entered because of my purgation
and July 7th, when my child support payment has until 7/31/2005 to be
received.

The Court has taken note of the factthat I'm a stay at home father --
even suggesting that I should go out and get a "real job" (doubt he
would have said this to a woman...your comment relating to state using
purge clauses when a person has access to money is correct but has
actually been ruled on in those states that a judge can't impose a
purge clause unless he believes that the contemnor has the PRESENT
ABILITY TO PURGE OF HIS OWN ESTATE, using the stand of BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT, finding that if the contemnor can't purge immediately
what was a coercive sentence becomes punitive in nature and requires
criminal constitutional protections.

There has never been appellate challenges in Virginia relating to the
issue of the application of purge clauses...in most instances, a father
is required to purge by paying the entire arrearage and in Prince
William County, Virginia, judges impose purge clauses when fathers are
charged with criminal contempt (illegal)...and instead of questioning
this, the jailers simply keep the dadslocked up for their entire
sentence instead of getting "day for day" good time credit like other
misdemeanants incarcerated.

There is no law requiring accountability for child support payment
usage, I merely put that in to demonstrate what this MOTHER choses to
do with money that should have been destined for her child (now
emancipated).

The Virginia state law on the filing of motions for parties represented
by attornies is quite clear and doesn't provide for "administrative
personnel" to be designated to sign pleadings:

=A7 8.01-271.1. Signing of pleadings, motions, and other papers; oral
motions; sanctions.

Every pleading, written motion, and other paper of a party represented
by an attorney shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in
his individual name, and the attorney's address shall be stated on the
first pleading filed by that attorney in the action. A party who is not
represented by an attorney, including a person confined in a state or
local correctional facility proceeding pro se, shall sign his pleading,
motion, or other paper and state his address.

The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certificate by him
that (i) he has read the pleading, motion, or other paper, (ii) to the
best of his knowledge, information and belief, formed after reasonable
inquiry, it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law
or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal
of existing law, and (iii) it is not interposed for any improper
purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless
increase in the cost of litigation. If a pleading, written motion, or
other paper is not signed, it shall be stricken unless it is signed
promptly after the omission is called to the attention of the pleader
or movant.

An oral motion made by an attorney or party in any court of the
Commonwealth constitutes a representation by him that (i) to the best
of his knowledge, information and belief formed after reasonable
inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or
a good faith argument for the extension, modification or reversal of
existing law, and (ii) it is not interposed for any improper purpose,
such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in
the cost of litigation.

If a pleading, motion, or other paper is signed or made in violation of
this rule, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, shall
impose upon the person who signed the paper or made the motion, a
represented party, or both, an appropriate sanction, which may include
an order to pay to the other party or parties the amount of the
reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the pleading,
motion, or other paper or making of the motion, including a reasonable
attorney's fee.

ClearlyDCSE is not enjoying the nature of my FOIA requests and the fact
that I keep bringing DCSE into court here locally to challenge their
denial of such documents.