Fathers & Families Takes Child Support Challenge to New Court
January 13th, 2009 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
From Ned Holstein, MD, MS, Executive Director of Fathers & Families:
The new Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines went into effect January 1. They are causing substantial increases in child support in almost all cases. Many payors will see increases of “only” 20%, but some will see a tripling of their child support order, even when they are poor and the recipient is wealthy. In high income cases, the child support order for one child could exceed $50,000 per year.
We are bringing a lawsuit in state court to stop the new Guidelines. We need your financial gifts to sustain our legal expenses. When we went to federal court on January 5, there was an outpouring of gifts, and we need you to rise to the occasion again by clicking here.
How much money is legitimately needed to support a child? Far less than the Guidelines require, in many cases. If a recipient and payor earn the same amount, when all factors are taken into consideration, the recipient will enjoy a standard of living almost double that of the payor. This holds true throughout the broad range of middle class incomes.
For details, see the Minority Report I wrote about the new Guidelines. Instead of the child-friendly “two-condo solution,” the new Guidelines produce a “castle and shack” outcome.
Fathers & Families believes the new Child Support Guidelines violate the Massachusetts constitution in several ways.
They violate both the due process and equal protection rights of payors of child support. Also, the Guidelines violate Article 30 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights by having a secret committee prepare them, and a single judge declare them to be law. In contrast, Article 30 requires legislative approval of the Guidelines.
We argued these points before Judge D.P. Woodlock in federal court on January 5. We had a great turnout—almost 50 of our supporters took time off from work to attend the hearing. Judge Woodlock decided that the case belonged in state court, not in federal court. He did not rule on the merits of our case.
We had good reasons for going to federal court, but we did not win, so now we are going to state court. To do so, we again need your help and support by making as large a tax-deductible gift as you possibly can by clicking here.
Together with you in the love of our children,
Ned Holstein, M.D., M.S.
Executive Director
Some background info. from MSNBC's Judge denies challenge to child support rules (1/5/09):
BOSTON - A federal judge on Monday rejected a bid to stop state family court judges from using new child support guidelines that a fathers' rights group claims are unfair.
Fathers and Families Inc., a Boston-based group that pushes for reform of child custody and support policies, last month sued the state's chief administrative Judge Robert Mulligan and state trial court judges over the new guidelines -- which the group claims are burdensome to fathers and do not take into account the costs of raising children.
Judge Douglas Woodlock denied the group's request for an injunction to stop the new guidelines from being used, saying it would be inappropriate for the federal courts to get involved in a battle over state guidelines.
Ned Holstein, the executive director of Fathers and Families, said the group will likely refile the lawsuit in state court.
In its complaint, the group said the new guidelines call for support payments to be calculated based primarily on income, not the expenses incurred by the parents to raise the child. The group said the new guidelines also fail to take into account factors affecting income such as tax status, marital status, employment status and obligations to support other children...
In a statement issued Monday, Mulligan said the new guidelines were based on a review by a task force that analyzed data and "thoughtfully considered diverse perspectives.""I am very confident, based on my review and their recommendations, that the changes are in the best interests of children across the state," Mulligan said.
Mulligan said the new guidelines include provisions that consider the increase in health insurance costs and the requirement of mandatory health insurance in Massachusetts and provide greater guidance to judges for when a child support order should be modified.
But Holstein, who was a member of the task force, said the revised guidelines will increase the financial burden on many divorced fathers who are already struggling to make support payments.
"Somewhere there has to be relief for people who are going to be driven into poverty by the actions of a single judge who is unelected and not accountable to the public," Holstein said.
"));
19 queries. 0.562 seconds.
January 13th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
I pay child support in NJ based on my wages here. She lives in Woodstock IL, where the Cost of Living is 1/2 of what it is here. Plus my son just told me that she works for the apt complex she lives in so she pays almost no rent. And yet when he came out for Christmas I still had to buy him a winter jacket (they live where it's like 30 below) because she won't buy him one. He eats mac and cheese or frozen pizza every night and they have no money because she spends it all on the 2 yr old she just had because THAT guy doesn't pay ANY child support. But yeah, the guidleines at totally fair
January 13th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Can anyone summarize how this lawsuit might impact other states in the long run?
January 13th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
I think this is going to create a vicious catch-22. First the payor of the child support will end up paying more than before (whether or not they actually make the income to pay). Once that goes on for several months the reciever will go to the court and claim that since payor has such poor living standards they don't want their (because of course the child only belongs to that one parent) to visit the payor. Well later on the reciever will claim that since the payor doesn't have any major financial responsiblities they should be ordered to pay higher CS.
"castle and a shack"...I like that.
January 13th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Mike lordi - I live just down the road from woodstock in round lake. We are expecting a single digit (2 above) daytime high on thursday. I don't understand how a parent would willingly do this to thier child. Wouldn't this be child neglect, or endangerment? Any possibility of a custody hearing using this?
Miles, If this is upheld, I am reasonably sure you will see this type of thing enacted in almost every state. If it is shot down, I think you will still see other states try to implement it. After all, it's in the "best interest of the children".
January 13th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Men are the African Americans of this time period. We can be discriminated almost at will because propaganda has deemed us as bad.
January 13th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Ned Holstein says
"If a recipient and payor earn the same amount, when all factors are taken into consideration, the recipient will enjoy a standard of living almost double that of the payor. This holds true throughout the broad range of middle class incomes."
This is gender feminist equality.
Men need to Pay the lions share of their income (after immediate expenses), to fund the raising of their children in a statistically a more irresponseable environment. How heartbreaking it must be when the non-custodial father finds out his daughters pregnant at 12, and all the kids are smoking crack.
January 13th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Ahhhh, yes .........
Somewhere, sometime, the people in this movement will figure out that "Christian conservatives" and themselves have the same adversaries and would do well to cooperate with each other instead of throw barbs..
The adversaries are .......................UNELECTED JUDGES
January 13th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
..............maybe not only unelected ones, either.
January 13th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
You mean "Christian Conservative" right wing judges like Judge Bork? Here's what he had to say about divorced fathers:
There is no substantive right to "so tenuous a relationship" as visitation by a non-custodial parent. I cannot agree that the Constitution of its own force establishes any such right for a non-custodial parent - Excerpts from a dissenting opinion of Robert Bork in Franz v. United States, which involved a child who was secretly relocated, with her custodial mother, to a new home. Mother's new husband was a protected witness in a major criminal investigation, and father was unable to see or even know the whereabouts of the child. Luckily, Bork's statements were part of a dissent; the majority (who happened to be Democratic appointees) ruled that the government had to let dad see his son.
Bush and the Right had exclusive control of the house, senate, and executive branch for six years. They did nothing for fathers - didn't even let Wade Horn do what he said he wanted to (link federal CS funding to a presumption of shared parenting). They screwed us and yet ditto-head flunkies line up for more and still support them, like a battered spouse coming back for more and making excuses for the abuser (it wasn't her fault she hit me, she was drunk, etc).
Neither party has earned our support and taking any other position except a nonpartisan group effort is just insane.
True feminism is about moving beyond the gender roles that support women receiving custody more than dads - and which therefore hurt the kids and deprive women of the opportunity to develop their own earning potential (making them reliant on CS until the kids are gone and then.... boom).
January 13th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Remember, CS has nothing to do with supporting children. It is a system of redistrbuition of income. We take from the man to give to the woman. There should be NO SUPPORT. Each parent has the child 50% of the time, period. A parents income of status doesn't dictate whether or not he child loves you. Its time we push back and end this b.s. once and for all. We need to file huge numbers of lawsuits and make these judges do their jobs..
January 13th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
David Perry Davis said:
“Neither party has earned our support and taking any other position except a nonpartisan group effort is just insane.”
You’ve got that right. I supported Ron Paul (and still do).
January 13th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
What use is it to try to convince a judge that something is unconstitutional when the judge already knows it and does not care? Judges and legislators know that American men are too timid to take action in defense of their children's and their own rights. I have concluded that the only way men will regain their rights as fathers is to organize and take the law into their rightous hands. Consider a million man army of rightously angy fathers marching on state or federal capitols demanding that the legislators and judges uphold the constitution- or else!
January 13th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
I cannot afford to contribute to the cause at this time. I will pass the info along to other
"payor" parents. Good luck with the lawsuit and please know that your organization
is fighting the good fight!
January 14th, 2009 at 1:05 am
I was not aware that Bork did anything like that..Thats definitely bad.
I definitely agree that the two political parties are just rotten and worthless, I've said so for a long time
You don't have to be republican to be a political conservative in general.
The judge problem is known by MANY groups and it would go a long way if they were all on the same page on this and worked together on this national problem.
January 14th, 2009 at 11:08 am
It's not as bleak as all that....
There is hope. I won a fight against the state of New Jersey over appointing counsel for indigent child support obligors facing jail at enforcement hearings. Of course, it was a black letter law issue with a clear US Supreme Court mandate that should've been resolved in one motion, not a six year fight through the federal and then state courts, but all the same - eventually the court did the right thing (releasing 217 people from jail the day it was decided).
While neither party or ideology has our back, there's room for arguing within what sphere of politics you travel (and you should be active on one side or the other). As they say, "politics makes strange bedfellows" and we might disagree on everything from abortion to xenophobia, but we can agree on pushing for shared parenting across the board.
On the right, you can argue the Bakersfield "Taken Into Custody" issues and how ordering shared custody and removing the economic incentive for divorce will reduce its prevalence.
On the left, you can argue that sharing custody permits women to develop their own economic earnings ability since they're not tied to raising children if they're sharing it 50/50 with the other parent. That way, they don't end up with a higher standard of living until the kids are emancipated and then see it drop when the CS stops. It also blasts the gender roles that say mothers are nurturing and men's role is to earn.
There has been progress in many states - some (West Virginia comes to mind) have legislative presumptions of joint custody, other states (NJ comes to mind) have a de facto presumption of shared custody (IF the person asks for it and IF good counsel is involved - shouldn't be required, but it is).
Situations like the rip-off in MA (taking CS as a % of income without making even a pretense of tying it to the cost of raising a child and without taking parenting time into account) have a silver lining -- it will create more victims and some percentage of those victims - from both sides of the aisle - will GET INVOLVED AND CHANGE THE SYSTEM.
January 14th, 2009 at 11:10 am
For anyone interested, the suit is online at http://www.dpdlaw.com/notable.shtml . The site also includes a copy of the Administrative Office of the Courts manual (Directive #02-04) thoroughly discussing when warrants should (and should not) be issued and the correct way to conduct an ability to pay hearing so as to do all that's possible to ensure that only those who are willfully refusing to pay are "coercively incarcerated."
January 14th, 2009 at 11:35 am
If I’m not mistaken California decides child support ENTIRELY on income and visitation. For the most part the costs of raising a child has nothing to do with support payments.
January 14th, 2009 at 11:42 am
Move from the state and boycott any business that does business with the state of Mass. It is like higher taxes. Move before they change your case. You have to be sued in the state you reside. LEAVE THAT STATE! NOW!
Send in your notice of chang in mailing address to the post office (government) and leave.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
The reason Fathers and Family, Inc. lost in federal court is because it was the wrong argument. The federal government provides federal money to the state Child Custody Enforcement Agency based on a negotiated arrangement that the State complies with federal mandated requirements. In some states the federal funds equate to one dollar for every three dollars collected in child support.
Massachusetts’ new CS guidelines is designed to bring in more federal dollars to the state coffers. A constitutional argument will fail because the entire CCEA program is outside of constitutional law. This is why, as far as I have observed, every constitutional challenge has failed. If anything, it might be better to fight it under contract law.
In addition, the court doesn’t care about the “what it costs to raise a child” argument. They can ‘justify’ a stratospheric number in order to keep the CCEA operating in the green. They can mouth this argument as they do with the “best interest of the child” polemic, but is the precedent in the general sense of single custody really in the best interest of the child? No, it is not. Yet, the state takes the SC course because it legally binds divorced fathers to be an “absent parent,” who by law are required to pay CS. In short, the state benefits from the increased federal funds. The new guidelines need to be argued a conflict of interest in the terms and conditionms of contractual law.
.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
David Parry Davis said:
“Of course, it was a black letter law issue with a clear US Supreme Court mandate that should've been resolved in one motion . . .”
So, why wasn’t it? Judges slept through con law?
Your proposed argument to the right, would have to emphasise the true aim as being a reduction in divorce rate, otherwise, I’d proffer that it might land on deaf ears because the right is so deeply steeped in traditional gender role models, to wit - women raise and nurture children and men chivalrously sacrifice for them (ie all men sacrifice for all women and children all the time).
“Situations like the rip-off in MA (taking CS as a % of income . . . “
Well, as I am sure you well know, the genesis for such nonsense lies in notions of equity. Thus, the argument rests on the child’s “entitlement” to the benefits its parents are capable of providing, not the needs of the child to exist nor the right of a child to be raised according to its parents wishes.
Take the extreme say, while living a modest but comfortable life, a husband/father earns millions and has billions in the bank but never discloses this to his family (or anyone else for that matter) – in other words all is well in suburbia, the family is modestly but well-cared for and everyone is happy until . . .. along comes divorce, suddenly, what is effectively, a “new” entitlement (although it might be argued that is merely a trigger for enforcement for one extant) is generated by the divorce – viz, the wife and child are now “entitled” to live quite differently than the manner to which they had been accustomed. Thus, the trite but so very effective and ubiquitous argument regarding “maintenance of lifestyle” won’t get applied here. Instead mother and child will become instant millionaires without so much as lifting anything other than a litigious finger – (I’d argue that it is analogous to magic). Admittedly, this is an extreme example but I’d suggest it is a valid one for what a joke equity versus law is, and how it is truly damaging to those who genuinely contribute to society.
January 14th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
The o.p. says,
"[Ned's] group said the new guidelines also fail to take into account factors affecting income such as tax status, marital status, employment status and obligations to support other children...
"In a statement issued Monday, Mulligan said the new guidelines were based on a review by a task force that analyzed data and "thoughtfully considered diverse perspectives."" [my emphasis]
How can one reconcile the two conflicting statements above? Obviously they can' t be - the closest thing to an answer to that question is that "thoughtful" does not include thinking about the father; and "diverserse perspectives" means the perspectives of feminists and their supporters, and other pig-headed biased or money-grubbing groups, like mainly the state.
January 14th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Eduardo,
I think I see what you're seeing in comment #19, but it seems like Ned's constitutional argument is appropriate because these state groups and family court operate in secret ,and they violate due process. It just seems like that approach might appeal to the few just people who might hear it, as opposed to making it sound like a "business issue".
You sound like you know a pretty lot about the subject of law.
January 14th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
My post below should say, "I think I see what you're saying".
January 14th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
David Perry Davis says,
“Neither party has earned our support and taking any other position except a nonpartisan group effort is just insane.”
How true. I'm always mystified by the guys who want to make this a conservate or religious issue. Turning off potential allies on the left is a big mistake. Please put your politics aside, guys!!
January 14th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
When they ask "Why is there such a surge in 7-11 robberies?" ---NOW you know why.
February 2nd, 2009 at 8:53 pm
I have a modification case coming up soon with CSED so I cannot afford to go "public" with my questions about pending legislation in MT. Two years ago I had ALJ Hearing and the CSED Investigator, who is very friendly with my x-wife, gave testimony against me.
Can someone check out this upcoming legislation? Are they aimed at giving CSED more power? Guess I'm not understanding the bills.
HB 133 introduced by Mr. Stoker (payment in lieu of income withholding ?
HB 96 introduced by Hawk
Senate 122 by Jent Thank you
March 5th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
What is ha[ppenning in Family courts across our nation is grievous and unconstitutional.
Payors are being driven into povertyu and jail by a corrupt system that pays itself in the name of "childrens' best interest ". As usual exploitation and greed feed this unquenchable fire! Grass roots movements and nationwide protests of "incarcerated "individuals is what will provoke thought and change! Innocent men are being jailed for the "inability to pay" unrealistic child support orders. Free no more! Judges, lawyers, mediators, accountants, court house clerks, etc. have to eat too!!!!
March 9th, 2009 at 1:13 am
Please remove my email address from this webside
thank you
raymeier@hotmail
June 10th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
It's unbelievable the "Discretionary" Powers that Family Court Judges have to make unsubstantiated assessments of FACTS (i.e. my Tax Returns) that they were "unreliable", and to order me to pay "Child" Support based on my "Potential Earning Capacity", disregarding the FACT that I never made even close to that amount of money.
In reading the Child Support Guidelines, I realized how deceptive the wording is.
This is what's happening in our own "backyard":
1) A growing number of Custodial parents (both Mothers and Fathers) are using their Custodial Position to alienate the Child from the other Parent, and/or are extort money from the Non-custodial Parent in the form of "Child" Support, with the assistance of certain Judges who use their power to facilitate the alienation process, by unlawfully denying Visitation Rights to Non-Custodial Parents, with the intent to isolate the Child and allow the process of systematically brainwashing the Child against that Parent. Certain Judges are also arbitrarily "imputing" income based on "earning capacity", while at the same time denying the Non-Custodial Parent any Rights.
2) A growing number of Non-custodial Parents are being arrested for falling behind on "Imputed" Child Support based on "Earning Capacity", because of Certain Family Court Judges ARBITRARILY Imputing income, thereby creating what amounts to
"Family Court Generated Debtors Prisons". By the way, the United States is facing one of the worst recessions (if not the worst because we are now moving backward), not to mention rising unemployment and companies outsourcing jobs overseas. Meanwhile, these Judges are enforcing these "Orders" trying to squeeze every last penny from Non-Custodial parents who simply cannot comply with these "Orders". When a Judge cannot get the money from the Parent, they go after the Parent's spouse, and extended family members. Unbelievable but true.
3) In some cases the Children are forcibly being alienated (isolated, separated) from the Non-Custodial Parent and their side of the family, because the Child still wants them to be a part of their life. In fact, there is a book called "Children Held Hostage", which is about precisely this issue of forced parental alienation.
4) The wording in the Child Support Guidelines, lends itstelf to misinterpretations which allow CERTAIN Judges to arbitrarily impute income. The first paragraph includes that: "it is very important that the children of this State not be forced to live in poverty because of family disruption and that they be afforded the same opportunities available to children in intact families with parents of similar financial means as their own parents".
1st) Because of No-Fault Divorce, Certain Family Court Judges are rewarding the parent that caused the "family disruption" with Custody, and then adding insult
to injury by forcing the Non-Custodial parent (and Children) to FORCED IMPOVERISHMENT in the form of "Child" Support. Obviously, if the
Guidelines mean to blame "family disruption", for children being forced to live in poverty, why not punish the parent who caused the family disruption in the first
place?
2nd) It is important that, not only the Children of this State not be forced to live in
poverty, but that the Non-Custodial Parent also not be forced to live in poverty.
By the way, whenever the Children spend time with the "FORCIBLY IMPOVERISHED" Non-Custodial Parent, those Children are already being "FORCED TO LIVE IN POVERTY". Obviously, if the Guidelines mean to
"afford children of divorce the same opportunities available to children in intact families with parents of similar financial means as their own parents", why are Non-custodial parent's financial means taken away from them, and their children forced to suffer the financial consequences along with them?
3rd) The Child does not benefit by the "family disruption" of a parent (the
Non-Custodial Parent), who has to go to jail because he/she is falling
behind on ARBITRARILY Imputed Child Support based on "EARNING CAPACITY". Obviously, if the Guidelines mean to give importance to
Children, rather than Child Support, why do the Guidelines allow Family Court
Judges to disregard the priorities, and impute child support based on "Potential
Earning Capacity" (i.e. money a person never made). (Section 7, of the
Guidelines reads in part: "The court may impute income based on the parent's former income at that person's usual or former occupation or the average earnings for that occupation as reported by the New JerseyDepartment of Labor)
4th) In the long run, the State does not benefit by burdening taxpayers with additional
taxes, to support the growing number of Non-custodial parents going to jail in
already overcrowded / overburdened prison systems.
5th) The Guidelines create the incentive for Certain parents to obtain and keep their Custodial position by all means, including alienating the Children from the Non-
custodial parent, either to avoid paying Child Support, or to extort money from the Non-custodial parent in the form of "Child" Support.
6th) The Child Support Guidelines created a business out "collecting" Child Support, generating both government and private jobs. The Guidelines also generate
income, because the more money collected, the more money goes around within the Child Support "Industry", money which neither the Custodial parents nor the
Children get to keep.
THIS IS WHAT IS HAPPENING:
1) A growing number of Custodial parents (both Mothers and Fathers) are using their Custodial Position to alienate the Child from the other Parent, and/or are extort money from the Non-custodial Parent in the form of "Child" Support. This is being done with the assistance of certain Judges who use their power to facilitate the alienation process, by unlawfully denying Visitation Rights to Non-Custodial Parents, with the intent to isolate the Child and allow the process of systematically brainwashing the Child against that Parent. Certain Judges are also arbitrarily "imputing" income based on "earning capacity", while at the same time denying the Non-Custodial Parent any Rights.
2) A growing number of Non-custodial Parents are being arrested because of Family Court Judges arbitrarily imputing income to them, thereby creating what amounts to a "Family Court Generated Debtors Prison". By the way, the United States is facing one of the worst recessions (if not the worst because we are now moving backward), not to mention rising unemployment and companies outsourcing jobs overseas. Meanwhile, these Judges are enforcing these "Orders" trying to squeeze every last penny from Non-Custodial parents who simply cannot comply with these "Orders". When a Judge cannot get the money from the Parent, they go after the Parent's spouse, and extended family members. Unbelievable but true.
3) In some cases the Child is forcibly being alienated (isolated, separated) from the Non-Custodial Parent and their side of the family, because the Child still wants them to be a part of their life. In fact, there is a book called "Children Held Hostage", which is about precisely this issue of forced parental alienation.
This is the case with my daughter Noemi Dias Moron. Judge Mantineo knows that my daughter has been reaching out to me and my family, in spite of the fact that the Judge terminated my Parental / Visitation Rights, and the Judge Terminated Contact between my daughter and my side of the family. However, the Judge continues denying me any Parental/Visitation Rights, to give my ex-husband, his wife and her family time to succeed in alienating my daughter from me and my side of the family.
4) The wording in the Child Support Guidelines, lends itstelf to misinterpretations which allow CERTAIN Judges to arbitrarily impute income. The first paragraph includes that: "it is very important that the children of this State not be forced to live in poverty because of family disruption and that they be afforded the same opportunities available to children in intact families with parents of similar financial means as their own parents". However,
Reality is that;
A child does not benefit financially by a Non-Custodial parent who is forced himself to live in poverty because of arbitrarily imputed Child Support. Why? Because whenever the Child spends time with that Parent, both the Child and Parent suffer the consequences of forced impoverishment.
A child also does not benefit by the "family disruption" of a Parent who has to go to jail because he/she fell behind on aritrarily imputed Child Support Payments.
The State does not benefit by burdening taxpayers with additional taxes for the growing number of Non-Custodial Parents going to jail for falling behind on Child Support.
The Guidelines created the incentive for certain Parents to obtain and keep their Custodial Position by alienating the Child from the other Parent, with the intent to either avoid having to pay Child Support and/or to greedily extort money from the other Parent.
The more money is collected in Child Support, the more money and other benefits agencies such as the Child Support Enforcement Unit, and other Agencies receive.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:51 am
@ester
What you are describing is involuntary servitude. You must appeal this unlawful /unconstitutional ruling.
Almost all child support orders are unconstitutional. A demand of payment for funds you have already earned may be placed upon you by a court. Demands or orders for a specific future money amount under the threat of imprisonment are unlawful involuntary servitude orders or peonage.
Note - most state judges are federal criminals by making this type of order.
You cannot be forced to labor without a conviction. Well let me put it another way. The courts do this all the time because they can get away with ignoring the constitution. This is why I do not shed tears when judges or lawyers are killed.
Involuntary servitude is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion. (pay or be held in contempt) While laboring to benefit another occurs in the condition of slavery, involuntary servitude does not necessarily connote the complete lack of freedom experienced in chattel slavery; involuntary servitude may also refer to other forms of un-free labor. Involuntary servitude is not dependent upon compensation or its amount.
The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution makes involuntary servitude illegal under any U.S. jurisdiction whether at the hands of the U.S. government or in the private sphere, except as punishment for a crime: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
September 16th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
@Gallaher
I think that non-custodial parents that are being railroaded by the Family Court System should UNITE AND FORCE CHANGE IN THE FAMILY COURT SYSTEM. One way I found to do this was to expose my case to the public. In fact, I want to post the transcript of the Original Child Support Order (and other Court documents) for the public to read.
September 16th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
I forgot to check off the "Notify" box. Did anybody in this site get railroaded by Judge Mantineo from Hudson County Court in Jersey City, New Jersey?
September 16th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
I forgot to check off the "Notify" box. Did anybody in this site get railroaded by Judge Mantineo and/or Judge Costello from Hudson County Court in Jersey City, New Jersey?
I am in the process of creating a webpage telling my entire story, which will include my Court documents from the time of my separation (when Judge Costello was the presiding judge) until the present (Judge Mantineo is the presiding judge in Hudson County).
I plan to include information about my daughter whom I haven't seen since May of 2008, including letters from my daughter Noemi Dias Moron stating "HOW MUCH SHE WANTS TO SEE ME AND WANTS TO COME LIVE WITH ME". As recently as this month of September 2009 I received a letter from my daughter which I plan to post here (along with others).
September 16th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Don't know how active they are these days, but for a good noncustodial support group in northern NJ, start here: http://www.njccr.org/
There's also Fathers And Childrens Equality - they've been more centered in southern & central NJ, but are expanding (heck, you could get active and start a Hudson County chapter if there isn't one).
September 25th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
I am going to get into more detail about why I was ordered to have Supervised Visits in September of 2005, but I need to talk about what lead to that. When I married my husband he was an illegal immigrant from Brazil, who used me to obtain legal status in the country because the "marriage" never worked. He was abusive in every way and at one point gave me a black eye and swollen lip and I only went to the Harrison Police Dept to file the restraining order because my sister convince me and went with me to file the complaint. When we separated, he was already involved with somebody else which was one of the reasons I filed for divorce.
Stupidly, after I had already filed for divorce I dropped the last restraining order and went to the final interview at the Department of Immigration because I didn't want to have him deported. Truthfully, as I mentioned before, I already knew that he was involved with somebody else, but I didn't my daughter to blame me for not having her father in her life if he was deported which was why I went to that interview. But I did decide to move to Florida with my daughter when I realized that my ex was setting me up in Court and trying to take Custody of my daughter away from me. While I had relinquished my right to the newly renovated house that he moved into when we separated, he refused to relinquish his right to the marital residence, which was already in the process of foreclosure by the time we separated. After the divorce was finalized in January 2002, and he was ordered to relinquish his right to the house, he still refused. In the meantime, my daughter and I were living in the marital residence without any heat, he wasn't paying Child Support and he refused to help me pay for our daughter's medical bills because she was constantly sick due to the fact that the house had no heat. My ex was dragging his feet and the buyers threatened to back out of buying the house if they couldn't move in before the closing. So I moved my furniture/belonging s to my sister's garage and rented an attic in Kearny, New Jersey. Finally, when I was days away from having the Town of Harrison auction the house (it was my 2nd Auction Notice), my ex decided to sign the paperwork allowing me to finalize the closing. By then I was so angry that I had left several angry messages which he later used against me in Court.
During the Custody Hearings, I was being viciously attacked verbally by his "lawyer", while he was barely cross-examined. The Judge would either not let my lawyer present the FACTS, or when She did, the FACTS were considered "irrelevant" . At one point, my ex suggested that I "see a therapist" which I did and I picked one from his "list".. In fact, the Therapist Dr. Sharon Massey provided the Court with a POSITIVE EVALUATION, including the fact that my dealings with my ex and the Custody Hearings were the source of my stress, and asking for the Court's intervention, but instead, the Judge did the opposite. In summary, in August of 2003, I lost Full Custody and ended up with "Shared" Custody. Soon afterwards my ex filed for a reduction in Child Support asking the Judge to "impute" Child Support on my portion of income. And in 2004 I lost Residential Custody because of my "financial instability" and the fact that I "moved so many times". During all that time, I tried to stay in New Jersey for the sake of my daughter who was being brainwashed against me. However, whenever I mentioned moving to Florida, she would become upset so I tried to "suck it up". Finally, after one incident with my daughter in September of 2005, I ended up punching my daughter in the face, giving her a black eye. During the Hearing I was ordered to have Supervised Visits, Anger Management Classes and I was ordered to provide the Court with a Psychiatric Evaluation. I tried to explain to the Judge about how the ex and his wife were antagonizing me, but the Judge responded that "your hatred for these people is greater than your love for your daughter". By the way, a social worker from Child Protective Services talked to my daughter's Principal in 2003. The principal told the social worker from CPS that my ex-husband's fiancee at the time was an INSTIGATOR, which she has been from the beginning.
When I filed for Unsupervised Visits in January 2008, the Judge denied my motion because of my "history of mental illness" in spite of the fact that I had included the Anger Management Report and the Psychiatric Evaluation, both of which were postive and recommended Unsupervised Visits. Then 2 1/2 months later, the same Judge granted my ex's Motion for "Imputed Child Support", based on "Potential Earnings". That same year, the Judge granted my ex's Motion Terminating Contact between my daughter and my side of the family, based on UNPROVEN ACCUSATIONS from my ex who did not have a lawyer for that Hearing, and disregarding the PROVEN FACT that my daughter still wanted contact with my side of the family. Then the Judge terminate telephone contact between my daughter and I. At that hearing, the Judge asked me what my response would be if over the telephone my daughter asked to come live with me, at which point I responded that "she has that option". This was the Judge's argument for terminating telephone contact between my daughter and I.
Despite the fact that neither I nor my family have any contact with my daughter, she still manages to reach out to us, which is why the Judge's argument that my daughter is being influenced by me and my family is completely ludicrous. I know that I should never have taken my anger out on my daughter, I acknowledged that what I did was wrong, and I took the necessary steps to rectify the situation. All I want now is to prepare for my future, and be allowed to see my daughter.