TX man sent to jail for overpaying child support and visiting son too much

[devil21]

Well, now I think I've seen everything the domestic courts are capable of doing to damage the family unit.

http://www.policestateusa.com/2014/clifford-hall-child-support/


HOUSTON, TX — A father will spend half of 2014 behind bars for doing too much for his son. After overpaying child support and seeing his son too often — breaking terms that were secretly modified without his knowledge — a judge sentenced him to a lengthy jail sentence.

Clifford Hall has been doing his best to give care to his 11-year-old son, who lives with his ex-wife. He pays his child support and visits regularly. “I’m his father it’s my responsibility to take care of him,” Hall said.

Last November, his child support payments were paid in full. Sometime between then and now, the child support agreement between Hall and his wife was modified without his knowledge. Hall wound up overpaying by $3,000, a fact that Harris County District Court Judge Lisa Millard found contemptible.

Another term that was modified without his knowledge was his visitation schedule. Subsequently, Hall was found to have over-visited his son.

Judge Millard ended up finding Hall in contempt of court.

“When she said I remand you to the Harris County Jail for 180 days my mouth just dropped,” Hall told FOX 26 Houston.

In addition to the six month jail sentence, Judge Millard is forcing Hall to pay his ex-wife’s attorney fees. more at link

[Dr.3D]

So will they add time to his sentence for not paying child support while he can't work because he is in jail?

[Petar]

Well at least the whole modern feminist crowd is up in arms over this...

[devil21]

Jail time has turned into such a huge cash cow for local jurisdictions that locking people up for anything they can think of is the new normal.

[devil21]

More info on case.

http://www.myfoxhouston.com/story/24359680/2014/01/03/father-pays-outstanding-child-support-still-gets-jail-time#ixzz2q0M4XXRW


Judge Millard tells Fox 26 after she found Hall in contempt he walked out of the courtroom which she says is a big no no.

The robed one hath decreed from upon yon high pulpit! You'll take your state sanctioned ass-rape with a smile and ask for seconds Mr. Hall!


For anyone so inclined, Judge's chambers: 713-368-6550

[heavenlyboy34]

Depressing story is depressing. :(

[Suzanimal]

Good Grief...wtf is wrong with people?

[tod evans]

It's way past time..............

[DamianTV]

There are multiple ways to steal someones Freedoms.

The Oppressive way is to deny a person the Freedom to make a chocie for themselves. To speak, worship, own a gun, drink, smoke pot, eat, etc.

The Pervasive way is to deny a person the ability to take Responsibility for their own actions. Too many people in this country want only one Freedom, the Freedom from Responsibility.

Freedom and Responsibility go hand in hand. If you have the Freedom to say anything, you take Responsibility by not saying "Fire!" in a crowded area. Parents have a Responsibility to raise their children, provide for them until they are able to provide for themselves, and teach them how to provide for themselves. This is a Responsibility that has been continuously usurped by way of Family Courts and Schools. How many parents blame the Schools for their children's stupidity, yet do NOTHING to address the problem themselves? This paradigm of taking zero Responsibility has become multi-generational. Thus, people complain about the problems, then fall into the Hegalian Dialect (Problem, Reacton, Solution), and demand that Govt do "something" to fix the problem, which results in even more Responsibilities being taken away from the Parents. This situation is much less effective when the "problem children" are first generational, where by a Parent knows that if someone else does not make any efforts to solve the problem, they must take that Responsibility on to themselves to fix the problem. Once this hits Second Generation, this group that has learned that the way to solve a problem is to take No Responsibility for it encounters any problem they should be Responsible for, they behave exactly as they've been taught, and insist that it is someone elses Responsibility to solve their Problems.

The Achilles Heel of the Problem Reacton Solution paradigm is in the Reaction.

But now, we've reached End Game. People have been deprived of nearly every Responsibility they have in their lives. Feed me. Educate me. Employ me. Pay me. Entertain me. Protect me. What they are really crying out for is "Control Me". So when people try to take their Freedoms back, like Open Carry of Firearms, it is met with strong public resistance and fear. Thus, since Freedom and Responsibility are synoymous, to take Responsibility back is also now met with just as much resistance as taking ones Freedoms back.

You are NOT PERMITTED to be Responsible for yourself in any way shape or form, thanks to those who wanted nothing more than the Freedom From Responsibility.

[Anti Federalist]

Good Grief...wtf is wrong with people?

Police state is policing.

[Anti Federalist]

It's way past time..............

"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?

Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?...

The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

[Anti Federalist]

Judge Millard tells Fox 26 after she found Hall in contempt he walked out of the courtroom which she says is a big no no

http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2014/004/2/0/pennywise_in_front_of_a_mirror_by_oddman94-d70sp60.gif

[donnay]

Jail time has turned into such a huge cash cow for local jurisdictions that locking people up for anything they can think of is the new normal.

The Prison Industrial Complex. Texas supports privatizing prisons = for profit prisons.

Here's a flashback:

Prison Quotas Push Lawmakers To Fill Beds, Derail Reform
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/19/private-prison-quotas_n_3953483.html

[Anti Federalist]

The Prison Industrial Complex. Texas supports privatizing prisons = for profit prisons.

Here's a flashback:

Prison Quotas Push Lawmakers To Fill Beds, Derail Reform
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/19/private-prison-quotas_n_3953483.html

Why I will never support the idea of private, for profit, prisons or cops.

It's bad enough as it is, can you imagine free market efficiency and profit motive introduced into the "business" of throwing people in prison.

[kahless]

I remember all too clearly what it was like to have a ex and government officials having so much power over me. I really cannot describe my rage day after day, year after year, what that does to you.

[donnay]

Why I will never support the idea of private, for profit, prisons or cops.

It's bad enough as it is, can you imagine free market efficiency and profift motive introduced into the "business" of throwing people in prison.

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
~Ayn Rand

[jmdrake]

When is she up for re-election? Moneybomb for whoever runs against her.

[Philhelm]

Fucking cunt judge.

[devil21]

It is worth noting that the story of his "overpayment" conflicts between articles. One says he overpaid, one says he underpaid but caught up (the terms were changed without his knowledge stands regardless) and was still jailed. Either way, the guy was obviously trying to do what's right and it landed him in jail. Where's the common sense?

[Dr.3D]

It is worth noting that the story of his "overpayment" conflicts between articles. One says he overpaid, one says he underpaid but caught up (the terms were changed without his knowledge stands regardless) and was still jailed. Either way, the guy was obviously trying to do what's right and it landed him in jail. Where's the common sense?
Seems the judge doesn't have any.

[Suzanimal]

It is worth noting that the story of his "overpayment" conflicts between articles. One says he overpaid, one says he underpaid but caught up (the terms were changed without his knowledge stands regardless) and was still jailed. Either way, the guy was obviously trying to do what's right and it landed him in jail. Where's the common sense?

From what I gathered, his employer was taking out the child support unevenly. One week it was 0, the next week just a little bit, the next week a lot, so the guy was concerned that he wasn't up to date and gave another 3,000.00 to just make sure he was covered. I think that's what his lawyer was explaining near the end of the video at the link.

To answer your question, there's no common sense.

[Occam's Banana]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDLcyXzLMfg


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDLcyXzLMfg

[devil21]

From what I gathered, his employer was taking out the child support unevenly. One week it was 0, the next week just a little bit, the next week a lot, so the guy was concerned that he wasn't up to date and gave another 3,000.00 to just make sure he was covered. I think that's what his lawyer was explaining near the end of the video at the link.

To answer your question, there's no common sense.

Oh ok that seems like a reasonable "truth lies somewhere in the middle" explanation. I didn't watch the vid.

[Carson]

Oh yeah. Thinking about this thread got me off on a tangent and I completely forgot what the thread was about.

When I was younger I read about the way some Indian tribes raised their children. It was explained that the men had their world and language and the women theirs. Some tribes didn't even sleep together, like during times of war, for protection.

Anyway when the children were born they would spend their first five years or so living in the women's world. The boys and girls would all learn the language of the women. When they would get around five or so they would start moving into and living in the world of the men. They would start speaking the language of the men.

I think this may still be the way of it even though we don't recognize it. Sort of one of those, I can't remember the term for it. Subconscious; isn't the word. ??? Anyway I think when it comes time for the children to leave the world of the women and enter the world, and learn the language of the men, some women are rebelling and divorcing themselves from the situation to hang on to the children. I sort of thought it helped explain what happened when I was a kid and I think I've seen signs of it over and over since.

When you get down to what is the best thing to do with divorcing couples the answers and solutions don't come easy. If it is just the couple the problems for a judge entering the situation as a third party may be one thing. With children involved the whole thing just overwhelms me with the idea that breaking apart the pieces of a family unit could ever come out right. I mean as a judge, sometimes pulling two people apart might unite them and bring them together, if that was what was needed. If all ten want divorced and their own space, do you render down one or the other as a sacrifice?

I'd hate to judge this judge. With my preconceived notions on the idea that some women are using the system to keep the children protected from part of something they may not understand, I can't imagine my solutions would come off any better. I may have never really grown up complete. I will never know. I do feel that just because one father with the inherent right to guide a child in to the mans world may not easily be replaced with another male figure. The new one might be confronted and overridden by the fact that they are her children.

We are in trying times. Divorce is one of the most trying no matter where you stand.

[jmdrake]

I'm going to bookmark this thread for the next time some father snaps and does something crazy and some forum members get mad at other forum members for stating that maybe, just maybe, the system did something to the father to make him snap.

[Carson]

I'm going to bookmark this thread for the next time some father snaps and does something crazy and some forum members get mad at other forum members for stating that maybe, just maybe, the system did something to the father to make him snap.


Maybe snapping is just doing their job?

I remember someone explaining how when he would tell his mother he was going to do something she would say, you can't do that.

When he'd tell his father, the father would tell him he could.

And I'm not saying either one was right or wrong.

Parents in that sense are like hearing from both sides of a spectrum. I think kids need that. We took a poll in school and the worst behaved of us came from broken families.

In California divorce was quite prevalent. In Missouri it was very rare. That may have been a judgement based on time travel. It seems not everywhere moves along into the future at the same pace. Hippies culture, or what ever it was, was kind of the same way. They may have been gone in one place but you could still ride the wave with a little time traveling. With a little luck and planning some things may be avoided all together if your in the right place at the right time.

I think part of it to was that the people of Missouri were much more rooted and understood the meaning of life. They made it work best they could like their parents before them. I'm afraid the fundamentals are all being lost in the modern confusion we've created for ourselves.

[angelatc]

The original story at the Fox station tells a slightly different story. They do not mention that he overpaid his child support.


According to court documents, Hall was past due $3,000 dollars in child support for his 11 year old son. But the dedicated father was dutifully paying, as his checks were garnished, and the payments were held by his employer. The original child support order was modified, without Hall’s knowledge. Varying totals were taken from his earnings, creating confusion in Hall’s current child support standing. “I discovered for some reason his employer was withholding a large amount some weeks, a small amount some weeks, a zero amount some weeks”, said Hall’s attorney Tyesha Elam.
When Hall and his ex attended court last November, he was informed twice that he didn’t have a balance, owing no money. Hall’s ex wife’s attorney argued that his client wanted him to pay her $3,000 legal fees, and the judge agreed. To avoid jail time, Hall promptly paid the tab, but was still ordered to 180 days in jail, despite being caught up in payments. According to the court papers, Hall was also being accused of failing to follow the visitation agreement that had been put in place, but claims the visitation order was also changed, without his consent.



“When she said ‘I remand you to the Harris County Jail for 180 days’ my mouth just dropped. I can’t be there for my son in jail. I can’t pay child support in jail. This is not in the best interest of the child,” Hall said to My Fox Houston.


I know you guys don't this, but once your family splits apart you kind of lose credibility when claiming you only want what is best for the child. Maybe someday people will avoid this drama by staying married.

I think if I were this guy I might also get a new lawyer.
Millard told KRIV that Hall’s attorney could have filed a motion for reconsideration, allowing her to re-evaluate the situation; instead, Elam is working on an appeal.

[Dr.3D]

The original story at the Fox station tells a slightly different story. They do not mention that he overpaid his child support.






I know you guys don't this, but once your family splits apart you kind of lose credibility when claiming you only want what is best for the child. Maybe someday people will avoid this drama by staying married.
We don't know the reason there was a divorce. Who is to say the woman wasn't the cause of the problems? Maybe she was sleeping around.
Should the husband have to stay married to a woman who is living with another man?

[tod evans]

I know you guys don't this, but once your family splits apart you kind of lose credibility when claiming you only want what is best for the child. Maybe someday people will avoid this drama by staying married.


"Guys" are the minority when it comes to divorce filings.

There is so much financial incentive for a woman to become a "single mom" in todays world many choose that path not just once but repeatedly.

[angelatc]

There is so much financial incentive for a woman to become a "single mom" in todays world many choose that path not just once but repeatedly.

Wow - how shallow.

[belian78]

We don't know the reason there was a divorce. Who is to say the woman wasn't the cause of the problems? Maybe she was sleeping around.
Should the husband have to stay married to a woman who is living with another man?
There are many different scenarios where it would honestly be better for the children if the parents were apart. Angela's blanket statement about remaining married being better is as with all blanket statements, they are almost always wrong.

[tod evans]

Wow - how shallow.

Honesty isn't shallow.

Well maybe it is but it's the truth.

[angelatc]

There are many different scenarios where it would honestly be better for the children if the parents were apart. Angela's blanket statement about remaining married being better is as with all blanket statements, they are almost always wrong.

Awww - look at all the men trying to justify the breakdown of the family unit.

I'm not wrong.

Children from divorced homes are more likely to end up in poverty, abused, in jail, and earn less money in life as adults. They are also more likely to divorce.

What happens next is that you guys will start quoting anecdotal evidence, I will counter with several studies over the past 40 years and the whole thread will turn into a big "we hate women and you are an idiot!" session.

But I'll still be right.

[eduardo89]

Wow - how shallow.

It may be shallow, but it's the sad truth.

[tod evans]

Awww - look at all the men trying to justify the breakdown of the family unit.



I'm not trying to "justify" anything, I agree that family breakdown sucks and that the kids pay the price.

Can you agree that without mandatory child support and state aid for "single moms" that said breakdowns would be much less frequent?

[belian78]

Awww - look at all the men trying to justify the breakdown of the family unit.

I'm not wrong.

Children from divorced homes are more likely to end up in poverty, abused, in jail, and earn less money in life as adults. They are also more likely to divorce.

What happens next is that you guys will start quoting anecdotal evidence, I will counter with several studies over the past 40 years and the whole thread will turn into a big "we hate women and you are an idiot!" session.

But I'll still be right.
I wasn't justifying anything, just stating a simple truth. Regardless of what your studies say, there are times where it is honestly better for the children for the parents to be separated. Throwing numbers all day doesn't make that a false statement, you are honestly sounding like a child right now.

[angelatc]

Honesty isn't shallow.

Well maybe it is but it's the truth.


Maybe you need to hang out with a better class of woman, because I don't know anybody that wasn't absolutely emotionally shattered by a divorce. I don't know anybody who went into a marriage thinking anything except happily ever after type sentiments. I do not know any women who refused to marry a guy because he didn't have money, and I know lots of women who wouldn't date certain guys even though they had lots of money.

And it is indeed incredibly shallow, if not beyond shallow, to define marriage as nothing more than a financial partnership.

And that's true for both sexes.

[angelatc]

I wasn't justifying anything, just stating a simple truth. Regardless of what your studies say, there are times where it is honestly better for the children for the parents to be separated. Throwing numbers all day doesn't make that a false statement, you are honestly sounding like a child right now.


You're the one touting a fairy tale while stomping your foot and insisting that you're right even though you aren't.

Nobody said that divorce was never better for the children. I suppose in the case of a parent who physically abused the spouse and/or children, then divorce is better.

What I said was that overwhelmingly most of the time, it actually wasn't because it dramatically increases the probability that the children will fare worse in all measures of success in the long run.

[tod evans]

Maybe you need to hang out with a better class of woman, because I don't know anybody that wasn't absolutely emotionally shattered by a divorce. I don't know anybody who went into a marriage thinking anything except happily ever after type sentiments. I do not know any women who refused to marry a guy because he didn't have money, and I know lots of women who wouldn't date certain guys even though they had lots of money.

And it is indeed incredibly shallow, if not beyond shallow, to define marriage as nothing more than a financial partnership.

And that's true for both sexes.

It has absolutely nothing to do with "class" and in a courtroom it all boils down to money.

Every failed marriage ends up in a courtroom with a dollar amount affixed to the disillusion, doesn't matter if you're a blue-blood or from the wrong side of the tracks.

To bring in the emotional appeal of lustful beginnings isn't realistic, I can assure you that the guys felt the same way and the guys aren't the ones filing for divorce.

Further I don't know any guy who hasn't been emotionally and financially shattered by his divorce.

[belian78]

No, what you said what that the parents were hypocrites for 'wanting what''s best for the children' the moment they got a divorce. That, is what I took issue with, it's a blanket statement that like all blanket statements, are wrong 99% of the time. As for stomping feet, you seem to be the one upset here, I'm just pointing out you are working with an absolute and you shouldn't.

[Christian Liberty]

Why I will never support the idea of private, for profit, prisons or cops.

It's bad enough as it is, can you imagine free market efficiency and profit motive introduced into the "business" of throwing people in prison.

Well, this type of aggression can't exactly exist in a "free market", by definition.

That said, there's a difference between "private prisons" in a statist society like this one, which is essentially a form of fascism, and real private prisons that would develop on the market. Watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzYJYSm-MfI

You may not agree with every single point (I didn't completely either, I actually disagree with his assumption about the "cycle of violence") but its an interesting thought and what he suggests is definitely VERY different from fascist corporatist "private" prisons.

[tod evans]

Maybe you need to hang out with a better class of woman,

This just chaps my ass!

Instead of being a dick, I'll tip my hat to all the good hearted moral women who actually believe in the sanctity of family and marriage.

[oyarde]

Sounds to me like he is better off clear of the woman in the long run no matter what it costs . I would settle up with the judge later , lol . Bad deal for the kid , but you can say that for most kids these days .

[Paulbot99]

Remember when they said the system worked for the welfare of the children? ;)

[otherone]

"Guys" are the minority when it comes to divorce filings.


Women have choices, men have responsibilities

Gil Buckman, Parenthood, 1989

[satchelmcqueen]

plus a zillion
I'm going to bookmark this thread for the next time some father snaps and does something crazy and some forum members get mad at other forum members for stating that maybe, just maybe, the system did something to the father to make him snap.

[satchelmcqueen]

I know you guys don't this, but once your family splits apart you kind of lose credibility when claiming you only want what is best for the child. Maybe someday people will avoid this drama by staying married.

but every situation is different. my ex was a cheater big time toward the end. i tried for the last 6 months to stay married for the sake of our kids. she kept cheating anyway. i had to file for divorce. i hope your partner never does anything bad towards you because thats when you really understand that YOU cannot control anything anyone else does.

sometimes staying married is not the answer. i hope you just made a blanket statement without realizing it.

[satchelmcqueen]

Awww - look at all the men trying to justify the breakdown of the family unit.

I'm not wrong.

Children from divorced homes are more likely to end up in poverty, abused, in jail, and earn less money in life as adults. They are also more likely to divorce.

What happens next is that you guys will start quoting anecdotal evidence, I will counter with several studies over the past 40 years and the whole thread will turn into a big "we hate women and you are an idiot!" session.

But I'll still be right.
and sometimes the family unit was broken by the spouse first. the divorce was just the cure.
looky...im right :)

[jmdrake]

The original story at the Fox station tells a slightly different story. They do not mention that he overpaid his child support.






I know you guys don't this, but once your family splits apart you kind of lose credibility when claiming you only want what is best for the child. Maybe someday people will avoid this drama by staying married.

I think if I were this guy I might also get a new lawyer.

So....how does the man avoid the drama by "staying married" if the woman doesn't want to stay married? And why do you not think it's equally on the woman to stay married? And why should the court system make things worse by putting people in jail?

[jmdrake]

but every situation is different. my ex was a cheater big time toward the end. i tried for the last 6 months to stay married for the sake of our kids. she kept cheating anyway. i had to file for divorce. i hope your partner never does anything bad towards you because thats when you really understand that YOU cannot control anything anyone else does.

sometimes staying married is not the answer. i hope you just made a blanket statement without realizing it.

Whatever happened, it's all your fault because you are a man.

[fr33]

I know you guys don't this, but once your family splits apart you kind of lose credibility when claiming you only want what is best for the child.

Wow, how shallow. Things that were good might have turned negative after the child was born. There are many scenarios in which a divorce is better for the child.

[Schifference]

It is understandable when a woman leaves a man but not when a man leaves a woman. Poor women! Such a sorry story. Maybe in 10 years we will be reading how this guy doused himself in gasoline and lit himself on fire on the courthouse steps.

[oyarde]

It is understandable when a woman leaves a man but not when a man leaves a woman. Poor women! Such a sorry story. Maybe in 10 years we will be reading how this guy doused himself in gasoline and lit himself on fire on the courthouse steps.

I hope not to read that of anyone .

[klamath]

Since the stories conflict it is hazy but I can see there could a bit more to the story have seen this personally. There may be a whole lot to this story that is unwritten. A lot of times wages are garnished because the father refused to pay on his own. Another thing is how long had he know about his back child support and did he pay it up just before the hearing when he knew it would look bad in court. Of course at that point the ex wife had already paid a lawyer a non refundable fee? Did the father get a notice of the hearing changing the visitation/child support order or did he just say "fuck that bitch" and threw it is the trash. Was he showing up demanding to see his kid at unauthorized times, disrupting the wifes life and cussing her out for not letting her see the kid?
Yeaw there could be a whole lot more to this story. What a person says in court and what they really do can be a whole different story.

[Schifference]

All divorced fathers are scumbags and should serve some time in jail.

[Suzanimal]

I think, when it comes to divorce, there's plenty of blame to spread around and yes, it's better for the children if the family can stay intact (barring some sort of abuse) but that's not always possible - you can't stop someone from leaving if they want to. In my experience, it's been the woman who wanted to divorce but I'm pretty sure there are plenty of men who are assholes as well. What I find most disturbing, is the way courts are stacked against the father, I've seen it first hand.

Take this scenario..
-Husband picks up a nasty prescription drug habit
-Wife supports him for 10 years, works full time and comes home, cleans the house and takes care of the babies - who she has to put in daycare while she's working because she doesn't trust husband to take care of them (he's left them with strangers to go party)
-Husband gets girlfriend who "understands him" (another drug addict).
-During an argument, husband calls cops on wife for hitting him, she's arrested but the physical evidence clears the wife and proves the husband was the aggressor, of course the husband isn't arrested.
-Husband finally decides to leave wife for girlfriend and files for divorce, leaves the kids with wife and takes off.
-Court decides the husband and wife get the children 50/50 (despite the overwhelming evidence the husband is unfit) - husband is also awarded $3,000.00 per month child support and wife has to pay for husbands attorneys because husband doesn't work.
-Husband never comes to get the children - wife actually has them 100% of the time but still has to pay husband $3,000.00 per month child support or go to jail.
-Wife has a heart attack -while she's in the hospital husband doesn't step up - wife's mother moves in and takes care of children and pays bills out of her pocket because wife lost her job.
-Wife's parents lawyer up wife (she's broke)and drags husband's sorry ass back into court with mountains of evidence against husband and what do the courts do? They award wife full custody of the children (finally)but husband doesn't have to pay child support because he has "problems", to add insult to injury - wife has to pay husband $150.00 each if the children ever spend 24hrs. with husband.

Sounds crazy, that would never happen, now reverse the roles of husband and wife - that's exactly what happened to one of my brothers. (That's not even all the crazy ass shit she pulled either.) Courts are stacked against fathers and that's not in the best interest of the child. I'm not saying this is true in all cases, there are plenty of shitty dads out there, but I can certainly understand the frustration men feel when dealing with the courts.

Just my 2 cents...

[DFF]

Jail time has turned into such a huge cash cow for local jurisdictions that locking people up for anything they can think of is the new normal.

Yep, especially in Texas, which is a goddamned slave state with nearly the highest per-capita incarceration rate in the world...which is funny, because the majority of Texans falsely believe they're living in a "live free or die" state which goes against the grain, when in truth, Texas is the most statist, totalitarian state that there is.

[jonhowe]

Awww - look at all the men trying to justify the breakdown of the family unit.

I'm not wrong.

Children from divorced homes are more likely to end up in poverty, abused, in jail, and earn less money in life as adults. They are also more likely to divorce.

What happens next is that you guys will start quoting anecdotal evidence, I will counter with several studies over the past 40 years and the whole thread will turn into a big "we hate women and you are an idiot!" session.

But I'll still be right.

Have to disagree with you here (which is rare). Human behavior is not a science. I don't think you can pick the right course of action (divorce or stay together) based entirely on statistics. There are many COMMON situations where divorce is the better option (domestic violence, spousal rape, drug abuse/alcoholism, mental illness, constant reckless behavior, affairs, etc).

[devil21]

Since the stories conflict it is hazy but I can see there could a bit more to the story have seen this personally. There may be a whole lot to this story that is unwritten. A lot of times wages are garnished because the father refused to pay on his own. Another thing is how long had he know about his back child support and did he pay it up just before the hearing when he knew it would look bad in court. Of course at that point the ex wife had already paid a lawyer a non refundable fee? Did the father get a notice of the hearing changing the visitation/child support order or did he just say "fuck that bitch" and threw it is the trash. Was he showing up demanding to see his kid at unauthorized times, disrupting the wifes life and cussing her out for not letting her see the kid?
Yeaw there could be a whole lot more to this story. What a person says in court and what they really do can be a whole different story.

A few points to consider:
All states have adopted mandatory wage garnishment for support and the garnishment must be sent to the state for disbursement to custodial parent. States don't want to miss out on the interest accrued while the money sits in the state's bank accounts.

Child support issues (particularly cases of arrears) are also usually handled by state paid attorneys that work for the child support enforcement office. The mother in this case likely does not have a private paid attorney for this. The amount for legal fees he was ordered to pay is almost certainly to reimburse the state, not the mother.

The other drama you suppose could be happening could be accurate (it's not rare) but it still doesn't equate to 6 months in jail when everything was already otherwise resolved.

[WM_in_MO]

So what's the real story?

[Carson]

Here is Fark's take on this story.

Not News: Wife sues ex for missing child support payments. News: He did pay, it was a paperwork screw up. Fark: Judge orders him to pay ex's lawyer bill and throws him in jail for refusing

http://www.fark.com/comments/8096975/Not-News-Wife-sues-ex-for-missing-child-support-payments-News-He-did-pay-it-was-a-paperwork-screw-up-Fark-Judge-orders-him-to-pay-exs-lawyer-bill-throws-him-in-jail-for-refusing

[klamath]

A few points to consider:
All states have adopted mandatory wage garnishment for support and the garnishment must be sent to the state for disbursement to custodial parent. States don't want to miss out on the interest accrued while the money sits in the state's bank accounts.

Child support issues (particularly cases of arrears) are also usually handled by state paid attorneys that work for the child support enforcement office. The mother in this case likely does not have a private paid attorney for this. The amount for legal fees he was ordered to pay is almost certainly to reimburse the state, not the mother.

The other drama you suppose could be happening could be accurate (it's not rare) but it still doesn't equate to 6 months in jail when everything was already otherwise resolved.
Like I said it is hazy. From the articles; "paid back child support"-that is not over payment of child support. The "attorney representing the mother" would be the mothers attorneys not the state attorney. News reports are spinning the fuck out of this story so nobody has a clue what the real story is.

[MelissaWV]

Maybe you need to hang out with a better class of woman, because I don't know anybody that wasn't absolutely emotionally shattered by a divorce. I don't know anybody who went into a marriage thinking anything except happily ever after type sentiments. I do not know any women who refused to marry a guy because he didn't have money, and I know lots of women who wouldn't date certain guys even though they had lots of money.

And it is indeed incredibly shallow, if not beyond shallow, to define marriage as nothing more than a financial partnership.

And that's true for both sexes.

Nice to meet you.

* * *

And no, to the others saying this will be their banner when someone else does something extreme (setting themselves on fire, murder/suicide) because of the divorce and child support system, it won't excuse it. Each situation is different. The thing I take away from this story is that both sides seem to agree the goalposts were constantly moving. It's more than a little strange he was not notified at all.

It can be way better for the kids if mommy and daddy divorce in their individual situation, and throwing statistics at it will never yield you a 100% finding of parents staying together always being better. Sometimes mommy is a horrible person. Sometimes daddy is. Sometimes neither are, but they are awful around one another. Sometimes either party needs time to get better --- time that does not need to drag children into watching someone go through withdrawal or hitting rock bottom before they better themselves. It'd be nice if people could decide that on their own rather than the courts dipping into it. How much child support will she be getting once he loses his job while he's in jail, hypothetically?

[Schifference]

Nice to meet you.

* * *

And no, to the others saying this will be their banner when someone else does something extreme (setting themselves on fire, murder/suicide) because of the divorce and child support system, it won't excuse it. Each situation is different. The thing I take away from this story is that both sides seem to agree the goalposts were constantly moving. It's more than a little strange he was not notified at all.

It can be way better for the kids if mommy and daddy divorce in their individual situation, and throwing statistics at it will never yield you a 100% finding of parents staying together always being better. Sometimes mommy is a horrible person. Sometimes daddy is. Sometimes neither are, but they are awful around one another. Sometimes either party needs time to get better --- time that does not need to drag children into watching someone go through withdrawal or hitting rock bottom before they better themselves. It'd be nice if people could decide that on their own rather than the courts dipping into it. How much child support will she be getting once he loses his job while he's in jail, hypothetically?
I think unless he brings her back to court and gets a court order to have his child support reduced while in prison he will be liable for the entire amount while in prison.

[DamianTV]

TV's and Facebook and School and Video Games are all replacing the Parents role in the Nuclear Family Model.

Next Generation when these kids that were raised by TVs and School and Games as their parents try to become parents themselves, they encounter more problems than just the Parent / Child relationship, but also have problems with the Parent / Parent relationship. Thus, in the 2nd Generation of children being raised by the Technological Replacement of Parents begins to teach their children through example how Parents behave towards each other. The teaching is done by example, and when the behavior of the Parents is nothing short of dysfunctional, the child learns that dysfunctional is not only "normal" but what is expected, and is going to happen to them as well. Parents divorce, even greater psychological damage is done to the child, suicide rates skyrocket, school shootings increase dramatically, and the childs overall wellbeing as an adult is severely comprimised.

When we add in the COURTS into the equation, and children are forcibly removed from the Nuclear Family, they learn from this experience as well. A few lucky ones might learn from example of how NOT to do something, but most will learn that this is their "normal". Parents literally have yelling and screaming matches over "whats for dinner" teaches "this is how problems are resolved" and "this is how they should treat their significant other". Introduce mandatory medication to attend schools, what schools teach children in general, dysfunctional TV relationships, overmedicated zombified network of friends, abusive Courts, and every other possible way to teach a child the wrong way to do something.

When it comes to the Third Generation of Children of the TV Court Schools, what kinds of people do we expect them to grow up to be? The problems start with the destruction of the Family Unit, but the way they end would terrify most people. How about Fourth Generation? Fifth Generation? Sixth? Does anyone think that there is any hope for a return to a "Normal Family", or even "Normal People" in general without the existence of a "Normal Family"?

[MelissaWV]

I think unless he brings her back to court and gets a court order to have his child support reduced while in prison he will be liable for the entire amount while in prison.

I understand that, and it's idiocy.

But from a "rational human being" standpoint, if you owe me money and are gainfully employed, and I do something to ensure you become unemployed, I'm never going to get paid at all. It is ridiculous. This man will lose his job if he's in jail for that amount of time, which means she will not get paid anyhow, and the lawyers likely won't, either. What WILL happen is that he'll be well and truly fucked. No job, no money, no recourse, and very unlikely that he'll see the kids as often as he already was.

I do think he has some options here, regardless of which version of the story is true, but in the meantime children grow older and ideas about whose fault it is start to cement. No, I don't even think the mother needs to "help" those ideas take root; children don't always get the complexities of why daddy can't visit as much, and why there are Spaghetti-O's instead of what they were used to eating. The logical person to blame would be the person who used to visit more, and who used to pay mommy money to buy more food, and plus he's in the place where only bad people go.

[Carson]

Something stood out to me from the Fark comments in the link I posted above. Someone posted this comment.

Even the judge said that had he not walked out like that, she would have been able to give the case a closer look.

I didn't think he walked out until the end. Wouldn't that be past the time when the judge should have looked into the facts of the case?

[fr33]

I understand that, and it's idiocy.

But from a "rational human being" standpoint, if you owe me money and are gainfully employed, and I do something to ensure you become unemployed, I'm never going to get paid at all. It is ridiculous. This man will lose his job if he's in jail for that amount of time, which means she will not get paid anyhow, and the lawyers likely won't, either. What WILL happen is that he'll be well and truly fucked. No job, no money, no recourse, and very unlikely that he'll see the kids as often as he already was.

I do think he has some options here, regardless of which version of the story is true, but in the meantime children grow older and ideas about whose fault it is start to cement. No, I don't even think the mother needs to "help" those ideas take root; children don't always get the complexities of why daddy can't visit as much, and why there are Spaghetti-O's instead of what they were used to eating. The logical person to blame would be the person who used to visit more, and who used to pay mommy money to buy more food, and plus he's in the place where only bad people go.

And then when he get's out he'll likely have a chip on his shoulder that will be hard to shake off. And if this sentence shows up on his record it's harder to find a new legit job. But what would the judge know about any of that. When she gets angry she can just take it out on others and fuck up their lives.

[devil21]

Something stood out to me from the Fark comments in the link I posted above. Someone posted this comment.

Even the judge said that had he not walked out like that, she would have been able to give the case a closer look.

I didn't think he walked out until the end. Wouldn't that be past the time when the judge should have looked into the facts of the case?

Yeah, the article stated (by quoting judge dickhead herself) that he walked out AFTER she found him guilty of contempt.

[jmdrake]

Nice to meet you.

* * *

And no, to the others saying this will be their banner when someone else does something extreme (setting themselves on fire, murder/suicide) because of the divorce and child support system, it won't excuse it. Each situation is different. The thing I take away from this story is that both sides seem to agree the goalposts were constantly moving. It's more than a little strange he was not notified at all.

It can be way better for the kids if mommy and daddy divorce in their individual situation, and throwing statistics at it will never yield you a 100% finding of parents staying together always being better. Sometimes mommy is a horrible person. Sometimes daddy is. Sometimes neither are, but they are awful around one another. Sometimes either party needs time to get better --- time that does not need to drag children into watching someone go through withdrawal or hitting rock bottom before they better themselves. It'd be nice if people could decide that on their own rather than the courts dipping into it. How much child support will she be getting once he loses his job while he's in jail, hypothetically?

Hey, I'm happy this guy is able to stomach going to prison for 180 days for some asinine judge and screwed up system. That said, my point, that you glossed over, is that sometimes people have been screwed with so bad that they decide to do something extreme. In the immolation thread I brought up the guy from Tunisia that set himself on fire starting the Arab Spring. Technically he wasn't treated as bad as this guy or the guy in the other thread. But then again, I don't think Crispus Attucks and the guys that started the snowball fight that led to the Boston Massacre had been treated as bad as the guy in this thread or the guy in the other thread either. Sometimes people get pushed to the point that they snap. The fact that Angela would find some way to blame this guy just because of the divorce without any other facts, as if divorce is somehow always the man's fault, is...well...special. I'll keep in mind her lack of objectivity next time a thread like this comes up.

[devil21]

This man starts his 6 month jail sentence today. He and his lawyer did an interview on Huffpo yesterday here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/21/child-support-error_n_4637465.html?1390319219&icid=maing-grid7%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl2%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D432808

[angelatc]

and sometimes the family unit was broken by the spouse first. the divorce was just the cure.
looky...im right :)

Dysfunctional does not always equate to broken.

In my experience, men cheat. Women find out, then file for divorce. Then the men start whining about "their" money.

[angelatc]

Hey, I'm happy this guy is able to stomach going to prison for 180 days for some asinine judge and screwed up system. That said, my point, that you glossed over, is that sometimes people have been screwed with so bad that they decide to do something extreme. In the immolation thread I brought up the guy from Tunisia that set himself on fire starting the Arab Spring. Technically he wasn't treated as bad as this guy or the guy in the other thread. But then again, I don't think Crispus Attucks and the guys that started the snowball fight that led to the Boston Massacre had been treated as bad as the guy in this thread or the guy in the other thread either. Sometimes people get pushed to the point that they snap. The fact that Angela would find some way to blame this guy just because of the divorce without any other facts, as if divorce is somehow always the man's fault, is...well...special. I'll keep in mind her lack of objectivity next time a thread like this comes up.


I'm not objective at all. I think divorce shouldn't even be legal unless both parties agree to it.

[angelatc]

Yeah, the article stated (by quoting judge dickhead herself) that he walked out AFTER she found him guilty of contempt.


The article I saw said that the judge said his lawyer could have made some motion on his behalf. Guess walking out killed that possibility.

[angelatc]

Fucking eh. I love trusting my gut:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/13/new-law-in-texas-sends-dad-to-jail-despite-up-to-date-child-support-payments/



This guy is a jerk who walked out on his pregnant wife when she was 7 months pregnant, so he could marry his girlfriend.


Hall split from Lane while she was seven months pregnant, so he could marry another woman.


He's already been jailed several times for being behind in his child support.


But she’s also been in court fighting for child support payments continually since the birth of their son, she said. And Hall has been jailed before for failing to pay child support

Repeat offenders tend to not get the benefit of the doubt. You guys really aren't very good a picking your folk heros. And exceptional at falling for every sad story the media spoon feeds you.

[jmdrake]

I'm not objective at all. I think divorce shouldn't even be legal unless both parties agree to it.

Well for very personal reasons I would agree with such a law. But in the current U.S. it doesn't exist. If one side says "irreconcilable differences" there's not much the other side can do. Sure you can fight it, but the fall back is "inappropriate marital conduct" and the bar there is so low that even a mild argument can count as "inappropriate marital conduct."

[angelatc]

Well for very personal reasons I would agree with such a law. But in the current U.S. it doesn't exist. If one side says "irreconcilable differences" there's not much the other side can do. Sure you can fight it, but the fall back is "inappropriate marital conduct" and the bar there is so low that even a mild argument can count as "inappropriate marital conduct."


In this particular case, the subject left his wife, who was 7 months pregnant at the time in order to marry his girlfriend. His ex-wife has been in a struggle ever since then to collect child support. He has been previously jailed for not paying support.


Since 1995, Texas law prohibited judges from finding someone who owes back child support in contempt for nonpayment if the obligator covered the arrearage before the court hearing. That left custodial parents fighting constantly — and expensively — with payment-evading noncustodial parents who avoided legal consequences by delaying court dates for as long as possible only to get current just before a judge could throw them in jail. It often made the entire process of collection an empty victory, given the out-of-pocket legal costs a petitioner might bear while waiting for the court to award legal fees.

The Texas legislature took a dim view of this situation. In June of 2013, legislators repealed (http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83R/billtext/html/HB00847F.htm) the provision preventing a respondent from being jailed if he or she was paid in full at the time of a hearing, in order to give judges the discretion to punish repeat offenders. The vote in both chambers was unanimous.

Elam says Hall’s jailing is a result of this change. “If Mr. Hall can go to jail, you can go to jail, I can go to jail,” she said. “This is what I’m fighting against.” She added that she is crafting an appeal.

But Hall’s trip to the Harris County Jail in a few days appears to be what the legislature intended.

Apparently the system caught up to Mr. Hall.

[Philhelm]

Meh, I told my wife that if she ever leaves me she will be executed for abandoning her post and committing high treason against her king.

[Ender]

I'm not objective at all. I think divorce shouldn't even be legal unless both parties agree to it.

I don't think government should be involved in marriage in any way, shape, or form.

[angelatc]

I don't think government should be involved in marriage in any way, shape, or form.


Yeah, it makes total sense to take away the automatic right to inherit your spouse's property.

[Ender]

Yeah, it makes total sense to take away the automatic right to inherit your spouse's property.

That should be in a premarital agreement- not the fed; especially when they will tax half of it away, at the least.

[Czolgosz]

Fvck the government.
This guy is a douche.
Stop complying with *their* rules and playing *their* game.

[otherone]

In my experience, men cheat. Women find out, then file for divorce. Then the men start whining about "their" money.

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRYmHpaIXqq9Y2rkcKhbJYIcFsPF0KvP zv4N1sI1ZD6SI7wyEEg

[devil21]

Fucking eh. I love trusting my gut:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/13/new-law-in-texas-sends-dad-to-jail-despite-up-to-date-child-support-payments/



This guy is a jerk who walked out on his pregnant wife when she was 7 months pregnant, so he could marry his girlfriend.




He's already been jailed several times for being behind in his child support.



Repeat offenders tend to not get the benefit of the doubt. You guys really aren't very good a picking your folk heros. And exceptional at falling for every sad story the media spoon feeds you.

Being a jerk is not a criminal offense. Who cares if he has previously been behind on his support? He paid up, was current and still landed in jail. The law is stupid and the judge should be removed from the bench. I'll stop falling for spoon fed stories if you stop falling for the prison industrial complex's lobbying efforts to throw people in jail for everything under the sun.

[angelatc]

That should be in a premarital agreement- not the fed; especially when they will tax half of it away, at the least.

Right. Making things more complicated will totally help.

Maybe recognizing common law marriage again is better solution.

[angelatc]

Being a jerk is not a criminal offense. Who cares if he has previously been behind on his support? He paid up, was current and still landed in jail. The law is stupid and the judge should be removed from the bench. I'll stop falling for spoon fed stories if you stop falling for the prison industrial complex's lobbying efforts to throw people in jail for everything under the sun.

Who cares? I am guessing his ex-wife, her lawyer, the judge...that's just a start.

In case you missed it, the law was passed specifically because of guys like him, working the system. .


Maybe he should have stayed married if he didn't want to deal with all these issues.