News: Fathers’ Rights, Child Support, Custody

17 responses so far ↓

• 1 wdfields // Apr 12, 2007 at 3:12 pm

  May it be that a White Elephant NOW stands presently before each and every family, child and citizen of what might otherwise be referenced of civil democratic society?

  Some may describe the White Elephant of conception roughly 30-40 years ago. It may now be further characterized with a concerning addiction to the Federal Dole.

  But how has it remained so nebulous?

  Previously, it sheltered under mere auspices of our children. Currently, however, it strives to further sustain sheltering. So now, the innocence of our children proves insufficient to fully cloak its burgeoning dimension. Accordingly, the White Elephant presently postures to additional blanketing for cover. In deed, it now may be observed in endeavor to facilitate or propagate vile catalysts for hate – i.e., hate of no other than loving parents to children.

  This may cause some to ask about Due process? What of God Given Unalienable Rights? What of the Founders and Foundations of American Heritage? What of the associated basis in the Magna Carta? What of diversity complete with Loving Families? What of the dignity of Individuals?

  Of these, the White Elephant cares little. Rather, it may possess a drive so great for its next fix (or even relative to mere believe (of false dicta) of need to prospective dealers) so as to urge the White Elephant blatantly forward into blundering stampede against better interests of children of the American Fabric. Figuratively (if not literally) speaking, the White Elephant now tramples upon fundamental liberty interests as though a beast in a China Shop – mind you, as allegedly the “best interest of the child.”

  And thus, the step onto the slippery slope of discrimination does present an awkward stage from which to stand uprightly. But such steps are not of our first (nor likely of our last) relative our historical pasts (figuratively speaking so as to be inclusive of ancestral pasts) of now known and predictable pattern of cyclical conduct.

  Might we therefore discern need today for renewed faith in civil and honorable democracy? May it be complete with callings for leadership of courage, vision and compassion of perhaps liking more to our honorable and historically recognized former President Abraham Lincoln?

  We may recall that at one time, a Judge would preside over matters concerning the ownership of the children of slaves. And yet, such judge would simply have been performing duties of their obligation in administering ”neutral” decisions upon having weighed the facts and law as might have then been presented unto their entrusted judgment.

  So while today, we might recognize of an apparent absurdity of such former conduct; the reformations that equipped us with present cognizance did not evolve but until we first progressed the initial steps of and beyond acknowledgement. Yet, the guidance for such steps currently may be credited to the assistance lent to us from committed leadership, understanding and convictions of former guardians to this great land – whom have historically been recognized for their gracious service to humanity and America.

  Might we likewise eventually come to again recognize an honor owing and deserving to the dignity of loving parents as of Individuals and of true need to endearing children?

  Might such similarly be deemed of an honoring for diversity of society complete with Loving Parents?

  Might such also be deemed in liking to provisions of the Magna Carta as of one of our basis?

  Might these further be of rapport to our American Heritage and Founding?

  Might such provisions in deed be in resonance to and respect of God Given Unalienable Rights?

  And might even the respects therefore come complete with notions of Due Process?

  Of what signs of the White Elephant, one may now ask?

  In an editorial of the New York Times, of February 7, 2007, entitled “Government Inside Out,” the editorial recites that “[t]he United States is quickly becoming a government of the contractors, by the contractors and for the contractors.” It further notes that “[t]here are plenty of examples of good contracting.” Yet, it sustains recognition for at a minimum, “need [for] pragmatism.”

  We should all be able to recognize benefits of “checks and balances” and of the associated principal for “separate and equal?”

  In the realm of Medicare, audits may lend appropriate litmus by which suspect schemes under auspices of elders may be revealed for perhaps the sinister chicanery that invariably will fall in the wake of the Federal Dole. Note, the provisions to Medicare and Medicaid may be recognized as of one arm from the umbrella of Social Security.

  In the context of Title IV-D as splinter arm from the umbrella of Social Security, in contrast, the feeding frenzy seems to have captivated vulnerabilities of many an addict. So what may initially have been of good intentions for provision to We the People of the People; has invariably been cleverly manipulated for servicing of Contractors, by the Contractors and for the Contractors.

  Initial chartering of Title IV-D by we the people (allegedly) via our lawmakers, may in fact be found the result of great salesmanship of a founder of what may now be widely recognized as one of the greatest guzzlers unto the (false dicta) believed ever perpetual and endless fountain of the Federal Dole. Yet, the initial pitch to our lawmakers of some 30-40 years ago may have been sugar-coated via emotional auspices to, of course no other than, our children.

  Once launched, it was driven unto the states for localized implementation.

  But some of the states may have found the lengthy provisions of these conceived sugar-coated workings — relative to otherwise more readily observed tenants of classic American and/or Federalist and/or God Given Unalienable Respecting notions of perhaps more honorable form – to be of cumbersome ordeal.

  Never fear, the very clever sells(wo)manship by which the trough had been previously lined, so to speak, was at the ready beck-and-call for “service.” Raising their hands, the now privately incorporated entities as contractors lend the states of their services (for self-service) in coming-to full-term and effective implementation of the Title IV-D.

  In so (self)administering, certain effective areas of ambiguity required qualified rulemaking provisions by which to effectively interpret any ambiguous intent of our lawmakers.

  And who else at the helm or wheel of our ship for administering unto needs of our great and glorious civil democratic society for the benefit of We the People of the People?

  Well, of course, none other than the NOW privately incorporated company(s) of founding by who else then whom had initially sold notions for the trough-lining within the initial chartering unto the White Elephant.

  But were We the People of the People present at such rulemaking administrative provisions?

  Are you kidding? At such moments, most of us were probably in grade school or middle school raising hands for honoring an allegiance to God and Country.

  Were interests of the future parents and children of America attended in such Rulemaking for interpretation of terminology of . . . e.g., “it” . . . or rather “absent”?

  Or, alternatively, were avenues for the White Elephant unto the Federal Dole perhaps more carefully administered?

  Did we have meaningful opportunity for oversight similarly to what might be present in the context of Medicare or Medicaid?

  Or, alternatively, were more important political opportunities and financial placations perhaps being administered?

  Today, by even of remote objectivity, realities blatantly present before us of the White Elephant staring us head-on (as though of a feigned dare).

  . . . . Consider, for example, that Ms. Cynthia Brown is none other than the noted spokeswoman of the National Child Support Enforcement Association (NCSEA). This organization meets on an annual and/or bi-annual basis (if not more frequently) for pure purposes of compromising otherwise respected checks and balances[1] of otherwise more dignified American democracy. Such compromises, over the years for sure, may ultimately be discerned to effectively self-administer of windfalls from the Federal Dole and/or political favors.

  Copied from a previous writing –

  May we discern that perhaps Ms. Brown may be possessed with feelings of obligations of greater allegiance to various private companies, special interests and the like; while thus of a gross conflict of interest postures relative to We the People of the People, not to mention. relative to Children of the Almighty. Yes, all the addicts of the Federal Dole within NCSEA catering to one another in sickening inter-related back-scratching activities. Some of the cross-related relationships reveal with very gross conflict-of-interests. For example, consider for a moment if you will that the president of their (not “our” of We the People of the People) organization is of a direct affiliation with a quite large and profitable Law Firm from the region of Mississippi[2]. So the too easily availed “dodge card” of “I’m not a lawyer and cannot speak to that” just doesn’t hold water – not at all. In all actual reality, if the alleged acts taken against better interests of children have been justified under auspices of law; then in fact, the full knowledge of such law would be an absolute must and certainly mandatory before any pocketing of large Federal Dollars. . . . . Good Grief! More especially so when considering the “fundamental” liberty interest involved.

  She cannot act under protection of outside counsel when in fact the information lent from such is totally absurd – especially when of no common-sense basis in law and/or facts. Reliance of opinion of counsel can never be naked. It must have a reasonable footing in the underlying facts (of certain obligation for research) and of underlying authority (also of certain level of obligation for familiarity – especially when being entrusted position of public service by We the People of the People.

  But, just in case one might want to further chase the distraction away from the issue and walk in the pattern of their cleverly devised issue controlling activities; one could ask perhaps of whom she obtains counsel regarding interpretations of alleged authority.

  Any attorneys within the state will likely dodge the question just as rapidly as she – i.e., something to the effect that they merely do as told. But, in fact, each of the attys likely already possesses an oath or obligation to report to an attorney only and not a non-attorney. If in fact they should find themselves working for a corp, or governmental organization, they remain obligated under the oaths of the sworn assumption. By such, the attorney would not be allowed to assist a “client” in “violating law.” If so positioned, the attorney would be obligated to withdraw representation – even if it should require resignation.

  Well, you don’t say. Duty to Country/community over the Mortgage? Really, its this simple.

  Clearly, in my humble opinion, there appears to have been absolutely no attempt of the states (one may argue) to preserve Liberty FBO Children of the Almighty. At a minimum, the state’s and we the people of the people have been duped.

  God given unalienable rights should be paramount as the ultimate foundation of law – i.e., even if via the United States Constitution.

  This well trained spokesperson likely has willingly feigned ignorance of any bill of rights, let alone of the US Constitution. If in fact such person did, there is no way in Hades that even the remotest thought for “disrespecting a dignity of individuals – e.g., not to mention of children and loving parents alike – would have ever crossed a reasonable conscious.

  A simple purview of the roster to NCSEA will bring forward the real story. Borrowing words from one of my favorite professors “follow the money[3].”

  Yes, we may see various names in the roster for the “Adult Babysitting Wantanobe” business. Such names may include, but would not be limited to –

  Contractors such as YoungWilliams Child Support Services, PSI, MAXIMUS, Family Law Assistance Services, ACS Government Solutions, University of Texas, Northwoods Consulting Partners, American Payroll Association, ACS Government Solutions, Harris County Domestic Relations, ACS State and Local Solutions, Ohio CSEA Directors Association, Health Management Systems, Informatix, Inc., ACS Government Solutions.

  Each of these entities (and others of similar service and/or sub-contractor relationship thereto) effectively conduct business with duty of loyalty owing relative to their shareholders of perhaps various international heritage and for profit. Such duty may be perhaps of greater calling than relative to one that might otherwise be owing from you and I of We the People of the People to the Constitution of the United States.

  Also within the list of entities catering to the “Adult Babysitting Wantanobes” business, various financial entities include even arms of Bank of America and JP Morgan, to name but of a few.

  So, in my opinion, it is no wonder that the beautiful spokesperson of NCSEA – a member of and catering unto the White Elephant – seemed a little desperate in performing of the cleverly crafted magic for smoke and mirrors. Consider her comment “Here’s what I’ve got to say and that is, I was really hoping today to get somebody from fathers’ rights who would sit down and actually listen and stop with the anger . . .“ of an apparent effort to attempt the NOW all too familiar “emotional” stigma trick.

  So while many an astute and gracious scholar, citizen and patriot may calmly present via clear articulation with credible citation, reference and otherwise; clever crafters seem ever continual in effort for cover by self-manufactured hallmarks as though of PC acceptable (not) practices.

  With sincerity of expression and good will.

  - just adad

  ——————————————————————————–

  [1] . . . improve efforts of federal, state, tribal, local and foreign governments, private sector organizations, and their employees in the field of family support; and to ensure effective implementation of Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), other family support laws, treaties, conventions and other international acts; to further a good working relationship among the various states, state and local agencies, tribal agencies, private sector organizations, public officers, attorneys, legislators and judicial officers . . . “ from the by-laws of the NCSEA, available via gateway at http://www.ncsea.org/content.asp?contentid=588 [editorial note, in essence, for purposes of corralling all the separate branches of government so as to compromise the otherwise three legged stool structure for civil democratic governance as had been originally entrusted to our care and guardianship by our founders. And what is “effective implementation?” Cash windfalls unto states and contractors thereto? Might the states therefore be essentially placated into acquiescence via the budgetary “dreams?” say, its only loving parents of children. Lets simply teach the children how aweful their parents are so that we may feel OK in the pocketing of the “blood” moneys.]

  [2] 2006-2007 OFFICERS
  PRESIDENT

  Mary Ann Wellbank
  Vice President
  YoungWilliams Child Support Services
  110 Rockridge Drive
  Clancy, MT 59634
  Phone: 406-933-8009
  wellbank@youngwilliams.com

  An affiliated entity unto none other than Young Williams, PA http://www.youngwilliams.com/

  The Child Support Services arm of the firm caters to various states of the United States.

  [3] For an idea of how much money, consider an article of Glenn Sacks, entitled “The Myth that Child Support Enforcement Collects . . .” of April 10th, 2007, at http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=495

• 2 mtomeck // Apr 12, 2007 at 3:16 pm

  Dr. Baskerville,

  I applaude your ability to maintain your composure. Ms. Brown, like many others, take the position that men are angry because they are oppressed. These same individuals are also willing to label ANY attempt by a man to have his rights recognized as being abusive and are batterers. In NY, our shot at shared-parenting legislation in 2006 was LOST because of ANGRY MEN WHO THREATENED LEGISLATORS!!!

  I sympathize for others like myself that do not possess the ability to communicate under this double-standard platform. I remain perplexed by how a man’s reaction is deemed ANGER, yet a women’s can be heroic.

  Thank you for your efforts Dr. Baskerville.

• 3 misjedfrost // Apr 13, 2007 at 3:28 am

  I agree with Steve. I pay my child support and feel that the govement is getting to involved. When I am being directed tp pay more just because I have a better job then the one I had before and because the cost of living has gone up should not be a reason that I pay 800.00 dollars per mounth. I never pay that much when my childerm lived with me. I went from 400.00 to 800.00. This made me angry. I don’t get to claim then on my tax’s and I don’t get to say how this money is spent. My childerm don’t get any of this money when they get old enough to move on their own. My X decide to buy a home and a car and now I have to pay for this. I pay medical and dental which come out of my paycheck this is not include in the child support payment so I end up paying more. This is aganist the law and should be presude under tort rules. You don see murders on pizza box or missing childern. and what about women who don’t pay you dont see then going to jail. All they have to do is cry in front of the juge and they are release with out paying anything. I know for a fact I have my newphe and nices that live with me and I can’t get their mohter to pay becouse she live in Cal now they are 18,17,16 years of age where is the justic in that. This is a one sided issue and it is against men. This women Ms Brown seem to think she know what is goning on because she only see women as the weaker of the two. She know nothing. Especially women who take advantage of the system. The law need to change. Women need to get a job and gett off their AS* . They sit at home and watch soaps. and depend on the ex-husban to pay their way. I pay medcare and taxs that are ment to help those who are less fortune to work.

  Thank you for your time

• 4 osbuck // Apr 13, 2007 at 5:19 am

  Yes, the system sucks. I, for years, paid two ex-wives essentially to not let me see my children. They never cooperated with visitation and I always paid support. I went to court at least fifty times over the years and no judge ever did a damn thing to resolve my problems with seeing my kids and there was never any consequences for my ex’s non-compliance with visitation orders. This system will never change until there are consequences for JUDGES who demonstrate that they only care about money for ex-wives, and in my opinion the only system that would address that is a Vigilante System, such a shame and the ones that are worse off in the end are the children. They were deprived of their Fathers when they needed them most, and not only that they are being brainwashed by bitter Mothers that their are “no good” and eventually because of only seeing one side the children come to believe. Something needs to be done, but enough will never be done.

• 5 Kevin Merck // Apr 13, 2007 at 5:23 am

  Stephen Baskerville is a true “American Hero”. I have an enormous amount of respect for him. It takes a lot of courage and selflessness to put himself on the frontlines of this struggle for justice. He is putting his reputation and his career on the line for people that most of society has been taught to despise. Notice that he doesn’t go by “stevepetitioner” or “anotherbask”, after all, who would listen to him if he did. He would be making fools and cowards of us all.

  The first comment to this story says that:

  [“In NY, our shot at shared-parenting legislation in 2006 was LOST because of ANGRY MEN WHO THREATENED LEGISLATORS!!!”]

  I wonder if these angry men called themselves; “oldmanq”,”anothervoice”, or “joepetioner” etc?

  Fathers using pseudonyms make it very convenient for people who want to undermine any progress. If fathers would use their real names, then only people trying to undermine our efforts would use pseudonyms.

  Fathers need to come out of the closet and stop worrying about the consequences. I think everyone questions the motives of people who conceal their identity. The idea that somehow you are hurting your children by revealing your identity is ludicrous. You are doing far more damage to “everyone’s children” by hiding in the closet.

  The coward who wrote this statement should be hunted down and tried as a terrorist.

  1. anothervoice said,

  on March 24th, 2007 at 4:11 pm

  Then I guess the only real solution is to shot the woman dead (if shot is too strong for you, try eliminate, delete, terminate with extreme prejudice) and then you don’t have to worry about her seizing your property. And NO, I’m not joking and I am quite serious. If they feel that they are putting their lives in jeopardy by making this false accusation to fraudently obtain property then it’s time to eliminate some of these bitches… and if bitches is too strong a word I have other choice words for them… shall I use them instead? And, don’t forget to make it look like it was “self-inflicted”.or an “accident”.

• 6 joepetitioner // Apr 13, 2007 at 2:00 pm

  That is funny that you say that. Kevin, you are a HUGE coward. You should be prosecuted.

• 7 Lawmoe // Apr 13, 2007 at 9:09 pm

  Below is a link to my radio and Fox TV Debate with Cynthia Brown on the issue of parents on Pizza Boxes.

  The radio interview was far more fair handed.

  http://www.nvo.com/beaulier/deadbeatfathersonpizzaboxes/

  In Butler County Ohio, Cynthia Brown, the head of county child support enforcement office decided that it was a good idea to put, what she calls, “deadbeat parent’s” on pizza boxes.

  I have spoken out against this practice as a method that is harmful to the children and a method that also highlights the disparity in our legal system that treats parents as wallets and pocket books rather than parents. You may review some comments in an Associated Press Article reprinted by Fox News and in my debates with Cynthia Brown on WBAL Radio in Baltimore, WCCO Radio “Pizza Box” Child Support Enforcement Tactics and on the National Fox Television Program “Fox & Friends.”

  For additional information on the issue visit the Website of National Father’s Rights Commentator Glenn Sacks.

  Many people have asked me what is so wrong with seeking child support payments by including parent’s pictures on pizza boxes. My answer is multifaceted but is focused primarily on three issues. First and foremost, the practice harms children. Second, treating child support paying parents and, particularly, father’s like criminals by creating a most wanted list ignores many of the reasons that child support arrears accrue in the first place. Finally, the practice clearly highlights the disparity between enforcement of child support and enforcement of parenting rights.

  Reasons Child Support Arrears Accrue.

  There is no doubt that there are a minority number of child support obligors who simply refuse to pay child support. However, such parents are the exception and not the rule. Yet, our state collection efforts, whether Minnesota or Ohio, paint them all with the same broad brush.

  It is compelling that a great majority of people who fall behind in their support do so unintentionally or for understandable reasons. These may include:

  Parents seeking to rationalize why they are unable to enforce their parenting rights but must still pay child support;
  Parents who fall victim to life circumstances which may include job loss, injury or other family tragedies;
  Parents who fall victim to mental illness or to feelings of hopelessness and despair rendering them unable to act to resolve their child support issues.
  Further complicating these issues is the fact that our legal system has grown complicated and confusing, often placing it outside of the understanding of ordinary people. Parents who are behind in child support often to not have the resources to hire legal counsel. As a result, they must attempt to navigate the murky bureaucratic waters related to finding appropriate legal forms, filing them correctly and serving the other party. Even if the administrative procedures are followed correctly, pro se litigants often fail to support their motions with adequate information or evidence since they have not been trained to understand legal burdens of proof or what evidence the court may demand in a particular case. In such cases, motions may be denied, income imputed while financial problems mount and arrears continue to accrue.

  Support for the contention that the most significant negative impact of our child support laws falls on the lower income is highlighted in Butler County Ohio. First, it is a concern that, as of this writing, out of 20 deadbeat parents pictured on pizza boxes, 18 were fathers. Further emphasizing the problem is the fact that each of those fathers possessed few employable skills and were qualified only for the lowest paying unskilled positions. Those financial circumstances would make any child support obligation difficult and it would clearly place the parent precariously on the brink of insolvency should even a minor event impair their earning capacity.

  What is also compelling is the non-modifiable nature of child support arrears. Despite the fact that unforeseen circumstances can occur and despite the fact that the legal system is difficult to navigate without counsel, child support arrears cannot be retroactively modified except under very special circumstances.

  As a direct result, the ends of collecting child support against such parents does not justify the means which includes attempting to shame the parent with their face on a pizza box.

  Punishing the Child

  One thing that Cynthia Brown seems to ignore is that by putting parents on pizza boxes, in the end, it is the child that is punished. Ms. Brown contends that any parent who is placed on a pizza box already has destroyed their relationship with a child. My response is that, first, such a contention is irresponsible and unfounded. A failure to pay child support does not mean a parent does not seek a relationship with the children whether it has been denied or not by the custodial parent. However, assuming, arguendo, that Ms. Brown’s point is valid, the child is still victimized. The practice of putting a parent’s face on a pizza box serves to harm the child in the following ways:

  Alienate a child from the parent;
  Punish the child by exposing that child to shame among their peers;
  Destroy the child’s sense of self identity because, regardless of how close their relationship is with a parent, that child, draws part of their sense of self identity from that parent. It conveys the message that if my parent is bad and a criminal, I am bad.
  Expose private family matters to public scrutiny which further impairs the ability of a parent to find gainful employment and to pay support.
  Potential for Error.

  Even with the best laid plans, making a mistake is possible and the consequence of an error is extreme. For those who have dealt before with the state and county child support systems, it may even be accepted without argument that the possibility of a mistake is probable. Child Support Enforcement Agencies are presented with a great volume of information that must be processed monthly, often with uninitiated workers due, in part, to a high turnover rates in child support departments. As a result, mistakes happen. They happen regularly and they happen often. Mistakes may range from failing to credit a child support payment to applying a payment to ongoing support rather than arrears to improperly reflecting child support obligations.

  Despite overwhelming evidence that mistakes occur regularly, Ms. Cynthia Brown has claimed on numerous programs that “we do not make mistakes.” This arrogance underscores the potential for error and, in the case of placing photographs of parents on pizza boxes, it may brand a parent long term.

  What is even more alarming is the fact that in Ohio, Ms. Brown acknowledges that two “Wanted” posters are circulated each year on pizza boxes. Those posters are not recalled. As a result, even after a parent brings their account current, the deadbeat parenting poster remains in circulation wrongfully picturing a parent as a “deadbeat” that is actually current in their obligation.

  Parents as Wallets

  One thing that cannot be ignored is the fact that our legal system and its administrative machinations treat enforcement of child support in a much different way than it treats enforcement of parenting rights. Parents who fall behind in child support regardless of circumstance are exposed to numerous perils as part of the collection process. Parents may be jailed based on both state and federal criminal charges. Parents may be jailed based on civil contempt. Parents may have licenses suspended including automobile licenses, work licenses and sporting licenses. Parents may have their passports invalidated. they may even appear on most wanted posters and, now, pizza boxes as “deadbeats.” Yet, there is no similar treatment for parents who ignore court orders and obstruct parenting time. Civil contempt remedies are rarely supported by the courts. Jail time for contempt related to parenting schedules is almost unheard of. Certainly, there are no remedies related to license suspension or passport invalidation. What type of message does this send? In essence we put the emphasis on parents as wallets rather than as parent’s who provide care.

• 8 Kevin Merck // Apr 14, 2007 at 12:41 am

  This is a statement made by Carol Rhodes, a “thirty year veteran” of the Michigan child support industry. You can listen to an interview of this “National Hero” by going to this link.

  http://www.krightsradio.com/07vid0anydad.php

  Carol Rhodes said,

  on January 29th, 2007 at 1:04 pm

  “It’s all about the money. It’s not about the kids, or the family, the constitution or even about law and order. The primary function of the Circuit Court’s Family Court System, is getting more kids on the roles so more money can be claimed from the Federal Tax prize. Every dollar that we Enforcement Officers collected was matched by $50+ dollars of tax benefits for our county Court System..Custody and parenting time issues don’t bring in Federal dollars. My director told us that pursuing these complaints were a “waste of our time.” I was ordered-under penalty of punishment-”to stop getting involved” in what I thought was best for the children or their parents. We were brainwashed to avoid having personal knowledge or concern about the parties of cases. We were told to call and leave response messages when we thought it least likely that the inquiring party would be home [and then, of course, we couldn’t leave any substantive information]. The system smiled on us when we sent people to jail by issuing bench warrants for failure to appear in hearings we scheduled. Everything about office policy and procedure was designed to keep the parties to cases in the dark as to what they should or could do to protect themselves financially. It is a power game. The Court can change the rules at any time. There is no one who will ever question when the constitution or the laws are violated or misapplied by the Court. The only question asked in the FOC is whether all the options have been tried for increased child-support collections. People can be sentenced to jail illegally by the Court officers, and the Court will find a way to justify or spread the blame so thinly that no one is accountable. But if an officer of the Court is caught HELPING a party to a case understand his or her rights to petition the Court for a REDUCTION of support, that sin is punishable by firing and cover-up legal manuvering. [I was written up for merely giving both parties a list of office policy rules for what is or is not acceptable reasons to deny parenting time.] I was chastised on record that office policy was NEVER to be given out to parties of cases, or to any individuals outside the FOC office personnel. Our 37th Circuit Court FOC was a model to other counties all across Michigan. We trained other officers from other states and counties. We weren’t the exception, we were the ideal of efficient FOC operation.
  Young parents need to know that signing the form to consent to have the Friend of the Court [or any Title IV D “service”] become involved IS OPTIONAL. You do NOT HAVE to allow the Friend of the Court to take over your children as Wards of the Court unless one of the parents fills out and signs the form. Your attorney and your FOC will never tell you that, but smart attorneys ALWAYS opt out of the FOC services. Most people don’t know what they are getting into before it is too late.”

  Make no mistake, “child support” is the biggest racket ever conceived by our out of control courts and legislature. They are “embezzling” upward of $50 for every dollar extorted from non-custodial parents. Don’t be led astray by these criminals any longer. It will eventually bankrupt the nation in more ways than one.

• 9 joepetitioner // Apr 14, 2007 at 8:29 am

  Havent I read that before?

• 10 Kevin Merck // Apr 14, 2007 at 2:58 pm

  The above comment posted by “lawmoe” is an article by attorney Maury D. Beaulier of Minnesota.

  He states:

  “There is no doubt that there are a minority number of child support obligors who simply refuse to pay child support. However, such parents are the exception and not the rule. Yet, our state collection efforts, whether Minnesota or Ohio, paint them all with the same broad brush”.

  In the following article posted march 19 2006 in ANCPR news …

  http://ancpr.com/blog/archives/275#more-275

  [Michigan parents behind on child support were given the opportunity during a three-month period late last year to pay what they owed and the state would forgive the late fees or other penalties — including jail time — they had wracked up.

  Some 422,000 delinquent parents were eligible to participate.

  Nineteen did — 19. If you were in any other business, you might call that disappointing.]

  I think the fact that only 19 of the 422,000 people in arrears volunteered to participate proves that the number of people who simply “refuse” to pay is much higher than most people involved in the system will admit. Most people know it’s just a criminal enterprise and about half of the people ordered to pay in the state of Michigan “refuse” to cooperate.

  Read the whole article posted. http://ancpr.com/blog/archives/275#more-275

  There are some very good comments. Pay special attention to the ones posted by Garibaldi.

• 11 Kevin Merck // Apr 14, 2007 at 3:02 pm

  The comment posted by “lawmoe” is an article by attorney Maury D. Beaulier of Minnesota.

  He states:

  “There is no doubt that there are a minority number of child support obligors who simply refuse to pay child support. However, such parents are the exception and not the rule. Yet, our state collection efforts, whether Minnesota or Ohio, paint them all with the same broad brush”.

  In the following article posted march 19 2006 in ANCPR news …

  http://ancpr.com/blog/archives/275#more-275

  [Michigan parents behind on child support were given the opportunity during a three-month period late last year to pay what they owed and the state would forgive the late fees or other penalties — including jail time — they had wracked up.

  Some 422,000 delinquent parents were eligible to participate.

  Nineteen did — 19. If you were in any other business, you might call that disappointing.]

  I think the fact that only 19 of the 422,000 people in arrears volunteered to participate proves that the number of people who simply “refuse” to pay is much higher than most people involved in the system will admit. Most people know it’s just a criminal enterprise and about half of the people ordered to pay in the state of Michigan “refuse” to cooperate.

  Read the whole article posted. http://ancpr.com/blog/archives/275#more-275

  There are some very good comments. Pay special attention to the ones posted by Garibaldi.

• 12 Kevin Merck // Apr 14, 2007 at 3:09 pm

  Maury D. Beaulier, an attorney from Minnesota, is the author of the article posted by “lawmoe” above.

  He states:

  “There is no doubt that there are a minority number of child support obligors who simply refuse to pay child support. However, such parents are the exception and not the rule. Yet, our state collection efforts, whether Minnesota or Ohio, paint them all with the same broad brush”.

  In the following article posted march 19 2006 in ANCPR news …

  http://ancpr.com/blog/archives/275#more-275

  [Michigan parents behind on child support were given the opportunity during a three-month period late last year to pay what they owed and the state would forgive the late fees or other penalties — including jail time — they had wracked up.

  Some 422,000 delinquent parents were eligible to participate.
  Nineteen did — 19. If you were in any other business, you might call that disappointing.]

  I think the fact that only 19 of the 422,000 people in arrears volunteered to participate proves that the number of people who simply “refuse” to pay is much higher than most people involved in the system will admit. Most people know it’s just a criminal enterprise and about half of the people ordered to pay in the state of Michigan “refuse” to cooperate.

  Read the whole article posted. http://ancpr.com/blog/archives/275#more-275

  There are some very good comments. Pay special attention to the ones posted by Garibaldi.

• 13 Kevin Merck // Apr 14, 2007 at 3:14 pm

  Maury D. Beaulier, an attorney from Minnesota, is the author of the article posted by “lawmoe” above.

  He states:

  “There is no doubt that there are a minority number of child support obligors who simply refuse to pay child support. However, such parents are the exception and not the rule. Yet, our state collection efforts, whether Minnesota or Ohio, paint them all with the same broad brush”.

  In the following article posted March 19 2006 in ANCPR news …

  [Michigan parents behind on child support were given the opportunity during a three-month period late last year to pay what they owed and the state would forgive the late fees or other penalties — including jail time — they had wracked up.

  Some 422,000 delinquent parents were eligible to participate.

  Nineteen did — 19. If you were in any other business, you might call that disappointing.]

  I think the fact that only 19 of the 422,000 people in arrears volunteered to participate proves that the number of people who simply “refuse” to pay is much higher than most people involved in the system will admit. Most people know it’s just a criminal enterprise and about half of the people ordered to pay in the state of Michigan “refuse” to cooperate.

  Read the whole article: No fanfare for child support amnesty posted March 19 2006 in ANCPR news.

  There are some very good comments. Pay special attention to the ones posted by Garibaldi.

• 14 DWiley // Apr 19, 2007 at 2:42 pm

  A year ago I watched my finance go through hell with child support arrears. His daughter turned 18 in 2005 and his job did not withhold child support from his check for 3 yrs. The support thought he was paying her was for his son. However, I am not married to him our stuff is seperate and my rights were violated. Brian and his ex wife made an agreement in court in front of the judge to drop 16,000.00 in arrears. After I was accused of hiding money for him and my rights were violated at the last hearing the judge added the 16,000.00 back into the amount of his arrears, wouldn’t let me testify after her attorney went on a fishing expedition. The judge and her attorney were good friends we seen her attorney hugging on the judges wife during lunch break. The judge said the last court hearing that he did not know how Brian would be able to pay the amount of child support he raised it to and that he did not know how he was paying for it in the first place. After what I witnessed in the Dallas, Texas court system it made my stomach turn. However, the ex witch would not let him see his daughter and tried to file charges on him through CPS. His daughter is almost 19 and she knows what her mom has done but I guess her mom has some kind of hold on her. They also filed false documents stating his daughter was disabled. HA HA she is working and driving. GO FIGURE. He pays almost 1200.00 a month in child support and I am behind the dads who get screwed over SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE!

• 15 Fluffy342 // Apr 19, 2007 at 7:52 pm

  File suit against Brown and the pizza company for conspiracy to violate the constitution and the constitutional and civil rights of those whose pictures they use on the pizza boxes.

  Also file suit against anyone who uses the PC phrases “Deadbeat Dad” or “Deadbeat Parent” as using a hate word/phrase. They can use “Debtor” instead of “deadbeat”.

• 16 Robert Stevens // Apr 22, 2007 at 5:01 pm

  In history discrimination and oppression always have to get way worse before those afflicted( yes I said aflicted) stand up inmass and finally put an end to it. This Pizza box thing is just one more indication it is getting worse and the day fast approaches for the GREAT STAND. It is going to happen. It is not if , it is when! These people have to be stopped.
  It is going to happen ! I believe I will see the day that all these terrible , horrific and just plain wrong things will end up on the ash heap of history.
  The old South was very bigoted, they had white and colored drinking fountains and made black folks sit in the back of the bus. Well that is all history. It has been outlawed and done away with. The same thing will happen with the feminist and the Government Sponsored Kidnapping and Extortion Racket that poses as a family court system. Evil in time is defeated and vanquished. Those responsible will be held accountable..
  It will not be easy, the ” racket” is thoroughly entrenched and has lots of resources at its disposal. But the forces of righteousness are on the rise, it is just a matter of time. Perhaps one of these “pizza boxes” will become a symbol of hate and bigotry and will be something our grandchildren read about in history class.
  One day, this will all pass. Reviled and hated by those who were violated and oppressed by it , treated with a twisted wonderment by those who study it and finally laughted at and forgotten by the new generations who never suffered from this awful thing and God willing , Never will………..

• 17 Kevin Merck // Apr 23, 2007 at 6:58 pm

  Each day that people continue to pay “child support” can be measured in horrifying loss of life, indescribable suffering, and grievous loss of liberty.

  Why put others through the same wringer we’ve been through? We have the power to stop this overnight. We have always had the power and always will. We just need to exercise that power; we need to “DIOBEY”.

  If you cooperate with criminals then you are no better than they are. Isn’t that what all “good parents” teach their children?

  Some people can’t stand the thought of going without a paycheck for even a short period of time. They are so preoccupied with money that their kids and their freedom are not even a close second.

  What a disgraceful day in American History this has become.

  Kevin Merck

You must log in to post a comment.