Child Support obligation to work does not breach Antipeonage Act in USA
I hope the following USA article clarifies this issue for NZ non-custodial parents (fathers). I apologise for using the old Guardianship Act terms, but they do communicate the legal relationships in a straightforward and honest manner, that helps real people to understand the caughtroom behaviour of these not qualified “judges”.
US OCSE Enforcement of Child Support Obligations
“The California Supreme Court reasoned that the obligation of a parent to support a child, and to become employed if that is necessary to meet the obligation, is in no way comparable or akin to peonage or slavery.”
That is exactly like saying that a measured distance of six feet is in no way comparable or akin to a measured distance of a fathom.
This is actually a misreading of the California Supreme Court’s Brent Moss decision. Because the state’s court of appeals indeed found that punishing Moss for employment insufficient to comply with the support order violated the 13th Amendment and the Antipeonage Act, the state’s Supreme Court found that Moss relied in good faith on his rights under those two provisions and therefore AFFIRMED the annulment of the superior court’s contempt finding.
So what the California Supreme Court did was to CREATE new exceptions to the 13th Amendment and the Antipeonage Act based on child support. The way they ducked the involuntary servitude issue was to find that as long as the parent had a CHOICE of employment, being ordered to be employed was not involuntary servitude, peonage, or slavery!
Thus the 13th Amendment, Antipeonage Act, and the Peonage and Slavery Chapter became completely unenforceable! Human traffickers and pimps could avoid such prosecutions by claiming that their victims had at least a theoretical way of paying off their “debts” to them by alternative employment. It is not their fault that “prostitution” was the highest paying form of employment with which to pay off their “debts”.
One reason John McCain and Barack Obama admitted at the Saddleback Church that human trafficking is a huge problem and we need “more legislation” to deal with it.
Well of course! In order to protect the Child Support Crusade, ALL of the antislavery laws had to be NEUTERED!
Here is what we say in response:
As there is no excuse for domestic violence, there is no excuse for violating the Constitution of the United States.
No excuse for slavery, involuntary servitude or peonage.
No excuse for a federal FELONY!
No excuse for imprisonment for a debt.
The difference between imprisonment for a debt and imprisonment for noncompliance with a court order requiring the payment of money is equal to the difference between six feet and a fathom.
No excuse for denying any person the equal protection of the law, including the equal protection of state constitutions that prohibit imprisonment for debt.
No excuse for unreasonable support orders.
No excuse for Nuremburg Law type restrictions upon those unable to comply with unreasonable support orders.
No excuse for the government sponsored hate campaign against a class of citizens.
MurrayBacon’s comment:
I know that some people don’t like being made into slaves, so that there is a serious side to this topic.
Nonetheless, if you try to follow these “legal arguments” then you will only drive yourself crazy.
Essentially, you cannot progress your life, if you try to take these legal clowns (or “judges” as they like to be called) seriously. Bob Moodie really put this all into sensible and wise contrast. The more you see of these comedians, the less respect for their skills is engendered.
If anyone would like to read the complete article, please EMAIL me and I will send it to you.
if you try to take these legal clowns (or “judges” as they like to be called) seriously.
that comment had me laugh very hard murray, thanks.
Comment by davit affi — Tue 19th August 2008 @ 2:04 pm
One thing to be remembered is that even if the arguements against the Antipeonage act are verbose, obtuse and even use sophistry. The arguement that being required to work in order to pay the child support debt is so similar that putting the two together there is no difference between the two.
The state has a vested interest in preventing the child support act being recognized as breechng the Antipeonage act.
So the case that the child support act breaches the Antipeonage act must be presented time and time again.
Every chance that presents itself, where the arguement can be made that the child support act breaches the Antipeonage act, must be taken.
This what is called political activism, and the best people to target are the political advisors. It may take 10 or 15 years, but only constant pressure will bring about a positive change.
It must be remember is that the government has a extremely strong vested interest in preventing changes.
f you go to court about child support, take the opportunity to present the arguement, if you are asking for a change of assesment use the arguement that the child support act contravenes the United Nations Antipeonage/antislavery act and that the Government is signatory to United Nations.
Comment by phillip — Wed 20th August 2008 @ 9:49 am
I saw this:
IRD We’ve got what it takes, to take what you’ve got!
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sat 23rd August 2008 @ 5:52 pm
When I asked my family court judge why my ex-wife should not be required to get a job so that providing for our children’s needs would be a shared responsibility, Her Honor’s response (sarcasm intended) was that “Your [unfaithful, ex-]WIFE [NOT our children] deserves that money! (referring to ‘child support’). In other words, I am required to provide a government mandated LIFESTYLE for my children (and by inference, my ex-wife).
I was always under the impression that since it takes two people to create a child, that providing for the care and maintenance of that child was a shared responsibility. It seems that Her Honor has decided that I should be my ex-wife’s indentured servant, and should consider myself to be both damned lucky to be left with the net income from a minimum wage job, and allowed to visit with my children at my ex-wife’s whim.
Comment by alain smithee — Thu 13th October 2016 @ 11:07 am
#5. We are all in that same boat, you just gave the best definition of Child Support (with no checks if children receive such support)
“left with the net income from a minimum wage job, and allowed to visit with my children at my ex-wife’s whim”.
Some people have better access than others but it all depends on that money going through. If I ever stopped WW3 would break out. And the politicians see no issue with this system.
Comment by too tired — Fri 14th October 2016 @ 12:46 am
What i object to is the following. Break up 10 years ago-highly acrimonious-arrested, charged with domestic violence(did not happen)-and yet she continues to get a pay rise every time i do. I earn a good income, but object to seeing her and the children enjoying a lifestyle beyond my wildest dreams. Has anyone ever had the experience of seeing (almost annually) overseas holidays equal in value (up to $30k for the 3 of them) to my child support, and then the constant haranguing for help with school camps and the like. I mean, like, WTF. Where are the priorities and why do we have no say whatsoever in how money is spent on OUR children? If i don’t pay for the extras, the wrath of god is unleashed upon me, with vindictiveness that is frightening. I have always put the children first, but almost all parenting decision, in practice, are made by their mother, and if i disagree-well-“take me to court”. All responsibility, but no input allowed. I have a good relationship with the children, but loss of home, future financial security, time with the kids etc all gone. The one thing that all of this incredible nightmare has taught me, is to be strong, and to turn the other cheek-over and over again. My every action, or reaction is held to an un-natural amount of scrutiny, and if i have ever voiced my disdain-verbally or in writing, it is once again evidence of my “abusive and bullying ways”. One of the children peals off in terms of child support early next year. Off to university. However, the “saving” in terms of child support is not equal to what i was paying for her. She gets more bang for my buck. Yeah i understand the formula, but where is the common sense in it all. If one child equals $900 of my income, how come when she peals off, i save only about $5-600 per month? Then the kid says to me “will you help me with university?” I was on the phone to my daughter whilst she was on an overseas trip, and the ex’s friend effectively took the phone of her and said ‘time to come and have your dinner”-that is the disdain in which we are held.
Comment by shafted — Fri 14th October 2016 @ 3:35 pm
One day they will die , we can only hope it is a painful and drawn out death with plenty of time to think about things they have done to others .
Comment by survivor — Fri 14th October 2016 @ 4:42 pm
Shafted , once upon a time after a bad week due to the weather the IRD ripped their $210 out of my pay cheque and left me with $80 to pay the rent which was $240 and nothing for food .
I left that feminist [MOD: expletive deleted] eleven years ago , never to return ! Debt paid in full !
Comment by survivor — Fri 14th October 2016 @ 4:53 pm