An interesting legal question

Post Reply New Topic

It's not always men.

Secondly, the recipient family has an additional burden of raising the child or children. If child support isn't being collected as ordered, and they are forced to incur exorbitant legal fees in collection of those fees, the family becomes equally impoverished. They can be evicted from their home, the parent can lose their job because of an inability to pay daycare, they can have difficulty feeding the children or even meeting their basic needs.

Since these cases are about the wellbeing of minors, and the inability of bureaucrats to enforce court orders as written and purchased, I believe both parties should have access to free legal representation. The cases are first and foremost about children's rights, and often the rights of disabled young adults who continue to require parental support.

Unemployment, illness, injury, hospitalisation, and mental health difficulties can affect the recipient family just as much as the paying parent. In the case of the recipient, they have children to raise despite this burden.

Yes, yes, yes ... I got the same lecture from her lawyer while I lay in a hospital bed with viral pneumonia, IVs in my arm and an oxygen mask on my face.  All she wanted was 'her' money, even though her boyfriend owned a business he had inherited, and I was wondering if I would make it out of there healthy enough to find a job, a place to stay, and a pharmacy that would sell my prescriptions on credit. It was never really about me providing financial support, it was really all about punishing me for behaving like an aspie male (even though I didn't know it at the time).

"Fiend of the Court" is an apt moniker, in my opinion.[/color]

I'm sorry that happened to you. I'm not saying it's OK, or trying to play devil's advocate, but there are cases where the recipient is in that situation and cannot work. The other parent is obligated to help support the child, but for whatever reason they don't.

I wish all parties could have free counsel and mediation service in these situations. It hurts the children when either parent is forced to buy their solicitor a shiny new car, via legal fees.

There are cases in which the payer simply cannot pay, and in which the court simply refuses to consider any mitigating circumstances -- "Non-payment of support is stealing for from your children's mouths", said the judge. Then he threatened to send me to the county jail for a few months to "think about it" if I did not make good on all the back payments, penalties, interest, and court fees.

Court-appointed lawyer? DENIED!!

Meanwhile, my kids were living in a split-level suburban home in an upscale neighborhood with their mother and her boyfriend, eating three meals a day, and receiving all the care and comfort they needed at the boyfriend's expense.

Forgive me for considering your platitudes and excuses as insincere and meaningless.

It would be nice if, when there are extenuating circumstances, the government could step in and pay what the absent parent can’t pay, especially for families that are below the poverty line.

Jailing people who are unable to pay doesn’t seem like it would be helpful because it’d make it even harder to get a job.

As with collecting unemployment, it’d probably be a good idea if the government monitored things like looking for work and maybe help the individual get back on his or her feet.

For people who just don’t want to pay, there needs to be some ramifications.

That is a really tough situation which a lot of people are in. There needs to be some reform here because what they’re currently doing isn’t working.

I know I've flamed this thread, but this is a very hot topic for me -- nothing personal to those I've "yelled" at.

I think I'll go out now and find a trash bin or two to run over...

Cheers!

Well, it wasn't insincere or meaningless. I was on your side saying that shouldn't have happened.

Often the situation is reversed, with the children in squalor and the payor in a split-level home.

Often both parties are financially solvent.

Often one party (including the recipient, at times) hides their assets.

I advocate the entire system be reformed. Both parties' incomes need to be reported accurately, and undue hardship for either party needs to be identified. These cases are about the rights of children, and thus they should be free.

In the best of circumstances, children get their own lawyers appointed by the court.

That usually settles disagreements quickly.

In Family Court, when the parent is in danger of losing the child, in Florida if the mother (or the father) is indigent, that parent gets a lawyer. So, when I was trying to protect a foster child from a neglectful situation, the neglectful mother was provided lots of legal counsel and I had to pay for my attorney, and it was a seriously substantial amount.

But the mother had free legal assistance throughout the entire process.

This was not a criminal procedure at all.

In guardianship cases, the person being adjudicated as incapacitated get an attorney for free.

Yeah, I see that now. My bad. I'm sorry.

Do you mean a legal aid Para legal or an actual lawyer?

Since she was being adjudicated as incapacitated, was it entirely family court or also involved with mental health court?

An actual lawyer.

Two separate issues. I was just providing examples of provision of free attorneys for people not involved in criminal proceedings.

The first is family court. The second is probate, I think.