Man jailed for not paying child support

Man jailed for not paying child support

There are 60 comments on the www.county29.net story from Apr 10, 2008, titled Man jailed for not paying child support. In it, www.county29.net reports that:

A Connecticut man was sentenced to a year in jail for failing to pay $127,000 in child support to an Indiana woman who is the mother of two of his children.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.county29.net.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
parkebilly

Indianapolis, IN

#1 Apr 10, 2008
That'll help the kids!
I I I

Marysville, OH

#2 Apr 10, 2008
Daddy, is that you?

“FA LA LA LA LA ”

Since: Aug 07

Greenfield

#3 Apr 10, 2008
parkebilly wrote:
That'll help the kids!
I agree, garnish his wages, take his income tax checks, make him sell his car and house but jail is not going to help any of these kids. He should probably consider getting snipped too since he can't pay for the four children he already has.
psycho babble

Rockford, IL

#4 Apr 10, 2008
Don't breed em if ya can't feed em

“Vote or Shut it!”

Since: Oct 07

Sasparilla

#5 Apr 11, 2008
You can't earn in jail. And there are fundamental issues with this.

1. Child suopport is a civil issue, not a criminal issue. Failure to pay is not a criminal offense. Child support arrearage is a debt. Sending a person to jail for owing a debt is debtors prison. In addition, petitioners (plaintiffs) are allowed to hire independant attorneys who are them given prosecutorial previledges and powers during such actions. Again, this is NOT a criminal issue and is not tried in criminal court...yet we now have a prosecuting attorney trying the case.

2. Child support is not recalculated for changes in a Respondant's employment or income. However, if a woman or petitioner quits her job. His child support goes up. And unequally, if he gets laid off...tough. Pay or go to jail.

3. Child support is tracked to the penny up until the time it is paid to the clerk's office and then forwarded to the petitioner. However, ther is no requirement for the petitioner to show that the funds were, in fact, used to provide for the child/children. I personally know of several cases where back support lump sums were used for breast implants, tummy tucks, down payments on sports cars for non-family members (petitoner's boyfriend). And even a trip to Vegas in one case. Basically, the court will jail the Respondant for non-payment but has no concern for the child.

4. The petitioner has no responsibility to comply to any of the requirements of the court for the other aaspects of the agreement. Example: if the mother fails to allow visitation, there is no penalty. The judge will allow the non-compliance for weeks, months, or even years without taking any action to urge the mother to comply.

5. Petitioners are expected to work and earn in order to pay the court ordered support, yet in most cases, onloy allowed 36 hours of visitation every other weekend. How do you have a relationship with your children that way?

6. Mothers often use there children as pawns in a destructive game of "i'll make you pay you bastard". The court has no concern for the destruction that plays on young lives.

7. If a man gets a woman pregnant, society and the courts say "pay up buddy...it took 2 to tango"! So then a man will pay child support for 20+ years. Yet, if a woman wants to abort the baby, the man has no say in the matter. It is a double standard. It should be either he is 50% responsible and has 50% of the power...or he has no say-so...and therefore no financial responsibility. As it stands...women have their cake and eat it too....and they think they deserve equal pay/treatment for equal contribution. It is FAR from equal ladies.
yikes

Noblesville, IN

#6 Apr 11, 2008
All payments for child support should be made,but in the form of vouchers for food,clothing or school supplies.This would not end the abuse of waste of child support payments but would make it more difficult.One parent should not work their rear of so the other can go to Florida 3 times a year and drive a brand new freakin' Volvo.
flip side

Crown Point, IN

#7 Apr 11, 2008
Corbin Leape wrote:
You can't earn in jail. And there are fundamental issues with this.
1. Child suopport is a civil issue, not a criminal issue. Failure to pay is not a criminal offense. Child support arrearage is a debt. Sending a person to jail for owing a debt is debtors prison. In addition, petitioners (plaintiffs) are allowed to hire independant attorneys who are them given prosecutorial previledges and powers during such actions. Again, this is NOT a criminal issue and is not tried in criminal court...yet we now have a prosecuting attorney trying the case.
2. Child support is not recalculated for changes in a Respondant's employment or income. However, if a woman or petitioner quits her job. His child support goes up. And unequally, if he gets laid off...tough. Pay or go to jail.
3. Child support is tracked to the penny up until the time it is paid to the clerk's office and then forwarded to the petitioner. However, ther is no requirement for the petitioner to show that the funds were, in fact, used to provide for the child/children. I personally know of several cases where back support lump sums were used for breast implants, tummy tucks, down payments on sports cars for non-family members (petitoner's boyfriend). And even a trip to Vegas in one case. Basically, the court will jail the Respondant for non-payment but has no concern for the child.
4. The petitioner has no responsibility to comply to any of the requirements of the court for the other aaspects of the agreement. Example: if the mother fails to allow visitation, there is no penalty. The judge will allow the non-compliance for weeks, months, or even years without taking any action to urge the mother to comply.
5. Petitioners are expected to work and earn in order to pay the court ordered support, yet in most cases, onloy allowed 36 hours of visitation every other weekend. How do you have a relationship with your children that way?
6. Mothers often use there children as pawns in a destructive game of "i'll make you pay you bastard". The court has no concern for the destruction that plays on young lives.
7. If a man gets a woman pregnant, society and the courts say "pay up buddy...it took 2 to tango"! So then a man will pay child support for 20+ years. Yet, if a woman wants to abort the baby, the man has no say in the matter. It is a double standard. It should be either he is 50% responsible and has 50% of the power...or he has no say-so...and therefore no financial responsibility. As it stands...women have their cake and eat it too....and they think they deserve equal pay/treatment for equal contribution. It is FAR from equal ladies.
While I agree with MOST of your post, I have to disagree with the part about back support. The custodial parent has no obligation to use ALL of the "lump sum" payment on the child, for the simple fact that while the other parent was not paying his/her support the custodial parent was the sole support of the child.
There is now an increasing number of women paying (and not paying, making them deadbeat Moms) support. A friend of mine paid support for her children while they were living with their father. She got behind (weeks only) and was promptly taken in to court. On the other hand, when the children chose to move back with her, where they remain today, he hasn't paid support at all and she is unable to get the prosecutor to pursue it. While living with him, she not only paid support but bought their school clothes, paid for their book rentals, school supplies and even the girls' personal hygeine items!
pfft

Noblesville, IN

#8 Apr 11, 2008
or abort em.Its a choice you know.
psycho babble wrote:
Don't breed em if ya can't feed em

“Ignorance is not always bliss.”

Since: Jan 08

small town Indiana

#9 Apr 13, 2008
Corbin Leape wrote:
You can't earn in jail. And there are fundamental issues with this.
1. Child suopport is a civil issue, not a criminal issue. Failure to pay is not a criminal offense. Child support arrearage is a debt. Sending a person to jail for owing a debt is debtors prison. In addition, petitioners (plaintiffs) are allowed to hire independant attorneys who are them given prosecutorial previledges and powers during such actions. Again, this is NOT a criminal issue and is not tried in criminal court...yet we now have a prosecuting attorney trying the case.
2. Child support is not recalculated for changes in a Respondant's employment or income. However, if a woman or petitioner quits her job. His child support goes up. And unequally, if he gets laid off...tough. Pay or go to jail.
3. Child support is tracked to the penny up until the time it is paid to the clerk's office and then forwarded to the petitioner. However, ther is no requirement for the petitioner to show that the funds were, in fact, used to provide for the child/children. I personally know of several cases where back support lump sums were used for breast implants, tummy tucks, down payments on sports cars for non-family members (petitoner's boyfriend). And even a trip to Vegas in one case. Basically, the court will jail the Respondant for non-payment but has no concern for the child.
4. The petitioner has no responsibility to comply to any of the requirements of the court for the other aaspects of the agreement. Example: if the mother fails to allow visitation, there is no penalty. The judge will allow the non-compliance for weeks, months, or even years without taking any action to urge the mother to comply.
5. Petitioners are expected to work and earn in order to pay the court ordered support, yet in most cases, onloy allowed 36 hours of visitation every other weekend. How do you have a relationship with your children that way?
6. Mothers often use there children as pawns in a destructive game of "i'll make you pay you bastard". The court has no concern for the destruction that plays on young lives.
7. If a man gets a woman pregnant, society and the courts say "pay up buddy...it took 2 to tango"! So then a man will pay child support for 20+ years. Yet, if a woman wants to abort the baby, the man has no say in the matter. It is a double standard. It should be either he is 50% responsible and has 50% of the power...or he has no say-so...and therefore no financial responsibility. As it stands...women have their cake and eat it too....and they think they deserve equal pay/treatment for equal contribution. It is FAR from equal ladies.
I agree with some of your statements.#1, we should not and do not have debtors prison and yet there are cases where we do; if a person on probation cannot pay for court ordered drug tests, counseling, etc. they could wind up in jail because they call it petition to revoke probation.#2 Child support can be recalculated but a person has to go back to court to have that done.#3 The fact is while the person wasn't paying the child support the other was supporting the child so what they do when they finally get a lump sum is no ones business.#4 Is absolutely not true; the person would need to take the other back to court; it is called contempt of court which is actually what not paying child support is. Not obeying a court order which is how they get away with #1.#5 some people do have joint custody and more visitation than 36 hours a week. Again go back to court.#6 I see this happening on both sides all the time.#7 You are absolutely right. A father should have 50% say in whether a child be aborted or carried to term; now as soon as the father can carry a child to term and medical docotors figure out a way to transfer the fetus from mother to father the father should be given that opportunity. This last one was hard for me because I do not believe in abortion.

Cpetr13

“Reality is better than truth”

Since: Jun 07

Indianapolis

#10 Apr 14, 2008
1) Child support is part of a legal judgment and thus does not fall under "debt". Ignoring a court order is indeed a criminal action. He isn't being jailed for his debt; he is being jailed because of his lack of fulfilling the court-ordered action.
2) If the woman loses her job, the children still need to be supported. And if all he is doing is writing checks while she is using both her money AND her time and effort to raise the children, I fail to see how payig more is a greater burden to him.
3) The court is not able to track every person who receives child support. Moreover, most child support doesn't come NEAR the halfway point of what it takes to raise a child. If the woman is using his money to raise the kids and saving some of her own, that is not your business nor the court's.
4) On the contrary, if the joint custody conditions are not upheld, then the other parent can indeed bring the other parent back to court. As most custodial parents will tell you, the struggle is getting the ex to come see he kids.
5) Many full-time parents don't get much more than 36 hours on the weekend with their children. Not only that, but there is usually no impediment to CALLING the kids during the week. You can even stipulate such contact in the settlement.
6) Stop ragging on women; men do this just as often and just as cruelly. Kids often become pawns for warring ex's.
7) Precisely how will a man take on 50% of the risks and health problems associated with pregnancy and childbirth? Men have absolutely no legal responsibilities during pregnancy, because they don't get a say in the matter. Support goes to the child if one is born. It is the existence of the child, not the continuation of the pregnancy, that makes men culpable. And frankly, I've never seen a working-class man pay anywhere near 50% of the required costs or raising a child.
Corbin Leape wrote:
You can't earn in jail. And there are fundamental issues with this.
1. Child suopport is a civil issue, not a criminal issue. Failure to pay is not a criminal offense. Child support arrearage is a debt.///
2. Child support is not recalculated for changes in a Respondant's employment or income. However, if a woman or petitioner quits her job. His child support goes up.///
3. Child support is tracked to the penny up until the time it is paid to the clerk's office and then forwarded to the petitioner. However, ther is no requirement for the petitioner to show that the funds were, in fact, used to provide for the child/children.///
4. The petitioner has no responsibility to comply to any of the requirements of the court for the other aaspects of the agreement. Example: if the mother fails to allow visitation, there is no penalty.///
5. Petitioners are expected to work and earn in order to pay the court ordered support, yet in most cases, onloy allowed 36 hours of visitation every other weekend. How do you have a relationship with your children that way?
6. Mothers often use there children as pawns in a destructive game of "i'll make you pay you bastard". The court has no concern for the destruction that plays on young lives.
7. If a man gets a woman pregnant, society and the courts say "pay up buddy...it took 2 to tango"! So then a man will pay child support for 20+ years. Yet, if a woman wants to abort the baby, the man has no say in the matter. It is a double standard. It should be either he is 50% responsible and has 50% of the power...///.

Cpetr13

“Reality is better than truth”

Since: Jun 07

Indianapolis

#11 Apr 14, 2008
And what about medicine, utilities, mortgage/rent, etc--all of which are part of raising a child? You think all you have to do is feed a kid, buy it an outfit, and some paper, and you're a decent parent?

What you pay in support has nothignwhatsoever to do with what your ex earns; the costs are based on what it will presumably cost to fulfill the child's needs, not how much the custodial parent can pay before going bankrupt.

How long have you been paying support?
yikes wrote:
All payments for child support should be made,but in the form of vouchers for food,clothing or school supplies.This would not end the abuse of waste of child support payments but would make it more difficult.One parent should not work their rear of so the other can go to Florida 3 times a year and drive a brand new freakin' Volvo.
Confusing

Freetown, IN

#12 Apr 15, 2008
It is a 'DEBT'..Don't pay and they add interest
charges to the back support..Still paying and
the Ex does not have the kids..Does not make
sense to put some one in jail for not paying,,
In Jail = not working,no income,can't pay support
Get out of jail = Go back to jail for not paying
support while in jail==NEVER ENDING STORY!!!
Been there,,Done that!!!
only green

Noblesville, IN

#13 Apr 15, 2008
Cpetr13 wrote:
And what about medicine, utilities, mortgage/rent, etc--all of which are part of raising a child? You think all you have to do is feed a kid, buy it an outfit, and some paper, and you're a decent parent?
What you pay in support has nothignwhatsoever to do with what your ex earns; the costs are based on what it will presumably cost to fulfill the child's needs, not how much the custodial parent can pay before going bankrupt.
How long have you been paying support?
<quoted text>
If you can't afford to raise the child maybe you shouldn't get custody.Also child support is based on income.{the income of the one paying support}Yes the non-custodial parent should pay support,but there needs to be a system to make sure the money is spent on the children,it is child support not baby mama support

“Ignorance is not always bliss.”

Since: Jan 08

small town Indiana

#14 Apr 15, 2008
Confusing wrote:
It is a 'DEBT'..Don't pay and they add interest
charges to the back support..Still paying and
the Ex does not have the kids..Does not make
sense to put some one in jail for not paying,,
In Jail = not working,no income,can't pay support
Get out of jail = Go back to jail for not paying
support while in jail==NEVER ENDING STORY!!!
Been there,,Done that!!!
You are right it is a debt and you will continue to owe the ex until you pay it even when the kids are grown. You are jailed for contempt of court because you didn't follow the court's order to pay the child support. Do you get the difference?
ant

Noblesville, IN

#15 Apr 15, 2008
Dads don't pay,moms spend money on themselves and kids are an afterthought. No wonder there are so many messed up kids.

Cpetr13

“Reality is better than truth”

Since: Jun 07

Indianapolis

#17 Apr 15, 2008
Since they aren't paying anyway, whether or not they make money in jail is irrelevant.
Confusing wrote:
It is a 'DEBT'..Don't pay and they add interest
charges to the back support..Still paying and
the Ex does not have the kids..Does not make
sense to put some one in jail for not paying,,
In Jail = not working,no income,can't pay support
Get out of jail = Go back to jail for not paying
support while in jail==NEVER ENDING STORY!!!
Been there,,Done that!!!

Cpetr13

“Reality is better than truth”

Since: Jun 07

Indianapolis

#18 Apr 15, 2008
Who should get custody--the ex who can't even take enough responsibility to write a check once a month? Absolutely frigging brilliant.

Thre is no way the government can go over the expenses of every household of every person receiving support money every month. It's also irrelevant; if the kids are not receiving the essentials, then you report the spouse for neglect. If they are getting the essentials, then what you want them to do with your payment is irrelevant.
only green wrote:
<quoted text>If you can't afford to raise the child maybe you shouldn't get custody.Also child support is based on income.{the income of the one paying support}Yes the non-custodial parent should pay support,but there needs to be a system to make sure the money is spent on the children,it is child support not baby mama support

Since: Jan 08

Indianapolis, IN

#19 Apr 15, 2008
Purl wrote:
<quoted text>I agree with some of your statements.#1, we should not and do not have debtors prison and yet there are cases where we do; if a person on probation cannot pay for court ordered drug tests, counseling, etc. they could wind up in jail because they call it petition to revoke probation.#2 Child support can be recalculated but a person has to go back to court to have that done.#3 The fact is while the person wasn't paying the child support the other was supporting the child so what they do when they finally get a lump sum is no ones business.#4 Is absolutely not true; the person would need to take the other back to court; it is called contempt of court which is actually what not paying child support is. Not obeying a court order which is how they get away with #1.#5 some people do have joint custody and more visitation than 36 hours a week. Again go back to court.#6 I see this happening on both sides all the time.#7 You are absolutely right. A father should have 50% say in whether a child be aborted or carried to term; now as soon as the father can carry a child to term and medical docotors figure out a way to transfer the fetus from mother to father the father should be given that opportunity. This last one was hard for me because I do not believe in abortion.
The father wants to abort, the mother doesnt. That would be a typical situation im sure. The Father should be able to avoid any penalties or liabilities for the baby. Tell the mother, you are free to keep the baby but if you do it is 100% your responsibility. This must be done in the first trimester or the father is in 100%. This seems like a fair compramise to me.
Imaginethat

AOL

#20 Apr 15, 2008
Corbin Leape wrote:
You can't earn in jail. And there are fundamental issues with this.
1. Child suopport is a civil issue, not a criminal issue. Failure to pay is not a criminal offense. Child support arrearage is a debt. Sending a person to jail for owing a debt is debtors prison. In addition, petitioners (plaintiffs) are allowed to hire independant attorneys who are them given prosecutorial previledges and powers during such actions. Again, this is NOT a criminal issue and is not tried in criminal court...yet we now have a prosecuting attorney trying the case.
2. Child support is not recalculated for changes in a Respondant's employment or income. However, if a woman or petitioner quits her job. His child support goes up. And unequally, if he gets laid off...tough. Pay or go to jail.
3. Child support is tracked to the penny up until the time it is paid to the clerk's office and then forwarded to the petitioner. However, ther is no requirement for the petitioner to show that the funds were, in fact, used to provide for the child/children. I personally know of several cases where back support lump sums were used for breast implants, tummy tucks, down payments on sports cars for non-family members (petitoner's boyfriend). And even a trip to Vegas in one case. Basically, the court will jail the Respondant for non-payment but has no concern for the child.
4. The petitioner has no responsibility to comply to any of the requirements of the court for the other aaspects of the agreement. Example: if the mother fails to allow visitation, there is no penalty. The judge will allow the non-compliance for weeks, months, or even years without taking any action to urge the mother to comply.
5. Petitioners are expected to work and earn in order to pay the court ordered support, yet in most cases, onloy allowed 36 hours of visitation every other weekend. How do you have a relationship with your children that way?
6. Mothers often use there children as pawns in a destructive game of "i'll make you pay you bastard". The court has no concern for the destruction that plays on young lives.
7. If a man gets a woman pregnant, society and the courts say "pay up buddy...it took 2 to tango"! So then a man will pay child support for 20+ years. Yet, if a woman wants to abort the baby, the man has no say in the matter. It is a double standard. It should be either he is 50% responsible and has 50% of the power...or he has no say-so...and therefore no financial responsibility. As it stands...women have their cake and eat it too....and they think they deserve equal pay/treatment for equal contribution. It is FAR from equal ladies.
Wife dumped ya huh?

Cpetr13

“Reality is better than truth”

Since: Jun 07

Indianapolis

#21 Apr 15, 2008
Once the pregnancy is started, it's way too late to offer choices about neglecting the born child. I would say that it should be agreed upon before the pregnancy, so the woman knows whether to allow the pregnancy at all.

I guess it's okay to let the kids starve or go without essentials as long as daddy opts out early. Screw'em; if they had any sense they would have been stillborn.
Sabinus wrote:
<quoted text>
The father wants to abort, the mother doesnt. That would be a typical situation im sure. The Father should be able to avoid any penalties or liabilities for the baby. Tell the mother, you are free to keep the baby but if you do it is 100% your responsibility. This must be done in the first trimester or the father is in 100%. This seems like a fair compramise to me.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Porter County Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Hells Angels participation in charity event lea... Jun '16 SRMC_Ken 1
News Ind. Gov't. - More on: 'Dunes pavilion alcohol ... Mar '16 harley boy 1
News Bill would expand alcohol in Indiana's state pa... Feb '16 Dana 1
News Nurse faces felony charges after 'driving half ... (Apr '15) Apr '15 girltoshytocry 2
News Election board to discuss candidate complaints (Apr '14) Apr '14 americason 1
News If Boyfriends Asks You To Hold His Stash, Just ... (Apr '06) Jan '14 Colorado Chick 85
News St. Mary to build $18M clinic in Valparaiso (Nov '11) Sep '13 Norman 2
More from around the web