Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    re .0
    Jim,
    
    The *only* option he has is to go into court and try to get the 
    payments reduced and set up some type of payment schedule to
    pay off the "back payments".  He will have to find a lawyer of
    represent himself--somehow.  "Child support" is set by the court
    and can only be changed by the court.  Sometimes provisions are
    made for a child reaching "the age of majority", but even then 
    in a lot of cases you have to go to court to get the "child 
    support" "officially" changed.
    
    I'm not a lawyer, but I've spent a lot of time in "family" court.
    Check out QUOKKA::NON_CUSTODIAL_PARENTS.
    
    fred();

Fred is correct, the only way to change his payments is through court.  The
$7500 arrears sounds like there could have been a judgement.  If this is
the case he probably won't even be able to borrow the money because the
judgement will show up on his credit report.  But, if there was a
judgement, like through the Child Support Division of the local District
Attorney Office he could go to them and bring his last few paychecks and
ask to work out some sort of payoff arrangement.  He can expect to meet
with some real ballbusters but in the end they want to settle the judgement
and not put him in jail.  The worst thing he can do is nothing.

patrick

    
    
    On the jail thing.  I've never understood why this would happen.
    Suppose one does get thrown in jail for nonpayment of support,
    how exactly is this person going to continue making weekly payments
    if he is no longer able to work to earn the money?  
    
    Michele

    re "makes no sense"
    
    at some point it's not supposed to "make any sense" it's supposed to be
    punitive (i think).
    The person who is not receiving the payments is already being punished.
    Putting the non-payer in jail doesn''t do the non-receiver any good but it
    doesn't do any additional harm, in that the non-receiver is already not
    receiving.

    Don't they make some money making license plates or something?
    
    Your friend should get a good lawyer. Looks to me like he got screwed
    or else he is a layed-off executive who is now driving a cab. How many
    kids is he supporting anyway?

    	The easiest thing to do is to go before the judge with his 1990 tax
    return, a statement of wages & tips for 1991 and any monthly bills that
    a necessary to sustain his own life. ie: electrical, gas, rent, grocery
    
    	If he can establish that in order for him to survive that he HAS to
    spend everything he makes to sustain his life, the courts will probably
    judge him insolvent and not able to pay and garneshee everything he
    makes over $X until his debt is paid.
    
    	If I thoght that I was going to be tossed in jail, I'd be working 
    a second job to keep the wolves at bay. Even if it was McD. I'd send
    the ex everything I could for as long as I could hold up and do it by
    money order and keep the slips. 
    
    	If he's only pulling down $150 a week driving a cab, maybe he
    should look for another line of work. Burger King pays better than
    that. 
    
    Ken

back to basics

re: .0  

I am new to this conf, and I am not a lawyer. However, I did spend time
in court in my divorce and watched the judge in action while waiting for
my turn in a MA court. Here is my 2 cents worth:

1. Divorce is based on "Agreement" document which spells out the division
of assets, support payments (alimony, child support), custody, visitation, 
insurance, what to do in case of dispute, ... Usually the division of assets
is final and irrevocable. The support payments have a cleverly worded phrase
as follows:

" ...support payments and judgements for the payment thereof are intended 
  to be not dischargeable in any bankruptcy proceedings ..."

Usually there is an escalation clause based on rise in husband's income
or the cost of living index.

There may be stipulated reductions in child support for future events 
such as a child going to college, finishing college, or otherwise 
emancipation. The underlying assumption is that the husband will continue
earning at the current level or better. 

There is no clause for unemployment or underemployment. 
However, in principle at least, the support payment is
modifiable by court (presumably for unforeseen circumstances).

2. I watched a number of cases involving nonpayment or underpayment by the
husband. Usually the excuse was either unemployment or underemployment which
was refuted by such allegations as: he is *really* not looking for
a job; he is under-reporting his income; he gets paid under the table; ...
In all such cases, this reputable judge used the following approach:

a. Is the support still needed? Are children's needs being met ?
b. The current situation of the husband is very very temporary (regardless
    of the gloomy economy).
c. Compel the husband to pay from his assets, if any.
d. Only if the husband had no assets (and no ability to borrow), did the 
    judge reduce the support payment -- but only temporarily.

3. There were cases in which the man or his lawyer pointed out the futility
of putting the man in jail. The judge disagreed, "You will be surprised in
your ability to find the money if the alternative is to go to jail." And,
he did impose a 30 day jail sentence if the payment is not made by such and
such date.

4. The judge never asked the ex-wife as to what does she do to cope with 
    his misfortune. 

   ( Can she do with less? Can she earn more? ...
    Remember the child support formula is a percentage of husband's
    annual income at the time of seperation agreement.)

5. I doubt if other States or other judges are radically lenient.

From all the information in .0 and the replies, I gather that we do
not have enough information to advise anything meaningful except to
suggest seeking a lawyer. However, he does have our sympathy.
                       ***********

Epilog: Men may feel this is cruel, unjust, and a pawn in the hands of
the legal system. Women may feel it is only right, and probably not just
enough. (He should be punished for attempting to defraud, ...). The current
situation simply depicts the aggregate of uses and abuses of the law by the
masses. Readers of this note may be a lot nobler than the average but we
men must suffer the past "sins" of us men.

No law was designed for this slumping economy or the misfortunes of DEC.
The real victims may not have access to this notesfile. There is real
misery out there. My heart goes out to all men who have to guarantee
the delivery of all support (as per Agreement) under drastically adverse
circumstances. The law does not seem to "require" anything from the ex-wife
to meet the adversity.

With sympathy and compassion,
Neil

Most divorced men that I've known realize that they have an obligation to
support their children but this is a general thought.  When it gets down to
individual cases it's not such an easy equation.  I married wife #2 6 years
after divorcing wife #1.  I had two children from #1 and 2 from #2.  I was
working two jobs, kept paying #1 even though I had no money to pay my
mortgage.  I eventually had to borrow money from my brother to keep from
losing my house.  There was a point where I had to ask myself which
children was I going to neglect.  It was not an easy decision.  I later
found out that #1 had underreported her income by over $50,000 per year so
that I would have to her more support.  These are the kind of situations
that drive a guy crazy.  I mean I know the laws are there so that children
will not be neglected but these laws overtly favor women and punish men for
impregnating women.  I now have custody of 1 child from #1 and 1 from #2,
my oldest is emancipated.  I cannot get any child support from #1 because
she says she has no income.  When the situation was reversed they told me
to pay or go to jail.  For her they say "No income?  Well ok, don't worry
about it."

My point:  The courts will do what is 'legal' not what is fair.

patrick

    
    Your friend will need to go back to court.  It is fairly obvious that
he cannot afford an attorney. However, since he is near the federal poverty
level, he may be able to get the services of an attorney for free or at a
reduced rate.  I would start by contacting the RI Bar Association to see if
such a program exists in that state.  If that fails, he might want to seek
out a local fathers' rights group.  Most of these groups have people who can
help fathers represent themselves in court.  If your friend has caused himself
to be in a position where he went from making a decent wage to earning $150.00
per week, then most likely he will be found "voluntarily underemployed" and
will serve his time.  The court is unlikely to give him an extension on his
"debt".  If he has not been found to have put himself in his current position
voluntarily, then using the appeal process may delay his incarceration.  The
case quoted below may provide the basis for that appeal.  

            "It should not be necessary to say that it would be a
        flagrant abuse of process to issue such an order to exert
        pressure on friends and relatives to ransom the accused
        party from being jailed." Maggio v. Zeitz, 333 U.S. 56,64
        (1948) Family Law Vol.  III, Douglas pg. 363.

 I also suggest that you read QUOKKA::NON_CUSTODIAL_PARENTS notes-
file.  Take a look at note #184.  It contains the pleadings of a
man who is also facing incarceration because of his inability to
pay the full amount of his child support and may give you some ideas.

Regards,
Gary

 .6
    
>    	If I thoght that I was going to be tossed in jail, I'd be working 
>    a second job to keep the wolves at bay. Even if it was McD. I'd send
>    the ex everything I could for as long as I could hold up and do it by
>    money order and keep the slips. 
    
    
>    	If he's only pulling down $150 a week driving a cab, maybe he
>    should look for another line of work. Burger King pays better than
>    that. 

     Quite possibly, he enjoys his work as a cab driver and is protected
by the Constitution against involuntary servitude.  What penalties would
exist for this person if his family was intact ?  It's nothing more than
discrimination against divorced fathers. Perhaps all custodial mothers
who are earning $150.00/week should be forced to seek alternate employment.
Allowing yourself to be bullied by the court will only keep father's in the
position they are currently in.  What will be the solution a year from now
when the ex goes back into the court and is granted an increase in support
because he is now earning more money working two jobs ?  Maybe, then he can
work three jobs since he'll still have eight spare hours each day.

It is more than difficult to get yourself to work each day when you're not
happy with your job.  If there's nothing left over for yourself, it's got to
be even worse.  You don't have the option of finding something more desirable
if it means taking a cut in pay.  Re-training yourself for a different career
won't necessarily help the situation since you most likely won't be able to
break into a new field at much more than entry level.  There's more to being
a father than writing checks.  Children also deserve to see their father as
a positive role model.

Gary

    
    relief isn't likely to be forthcoming, since the feminist juggernaut
    against male deadbeats has powerful allies, such as the fundies who
    want to see more people punished for more things, for punishments
    own sake.
    
    they both get a deep sense of satisfaction from every male life they
    destroy, either by impoverishment or by imprisonment.

    Thanks for all the help and information.  I will point him to getting a
    lawyer to assist him in navigating these waters.  He's been one of those
    strong, silent types who *has* to do it on his own.  Time for a shift in
    attitude, I think.  He's one of the relatively lucky ones in that there
    are a lot of people helping him out right now.
    
    Sounds like a tough time ahead at any rate...
    
    Jim

    .8, I think, raised the question of concealed income, and several have
    commented on the man's earning barely above the $150/week he owes.  You
    should consider that he is not telling you the truth about what he is
    earning, particular since he is a cab driver. I drove a cab to support
    myself in graduate school in the early '70s, and most cabbies never
    even report their tips to the feds, let alone to someone they're trying
    to convince they're getting screwed. (Tips for me amounted to 40% of my
    income, 20% of the total fare, and I got half the fare). Many cabbies
    also try to run "off the meter" if they can get away with it.
    (Incidentally, I earned about $40-$60 a night, twenty years ago.)
    
    Finally, $150/wk to support your 2 children doesn't sound out of line
    at all -- in fact, it sounds like a pretty good deal for the absent
    parent.  So, let's look a little more closely before we jump on his
    bandwagon.
    
    Kit
    
    

    A frequent comment of mine....
    
      Wouldn't it be nice if the custodial parent could go to the grocery
      store and ring up $100 worth of groceries and say to the cashier...
      "This is all I can afford."
    
      There are a lot of issues around child support, and certainly a lot
      of non-custodial parents are shafted by the courts etc.  I am very
      much in favor of legislation that requires an accounting of the 
      payments the custodial parent receives.  There are probably ways
      that a dishonest person could pad receipts but at least they would
      have to put some effort into it.
    
      But bottom line, the non-custodial parent owes somebody when they
      are unable to contribute and it isn't the grocery store.