Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Akira
Why Parenting Time Motions Fail and Child Support Motions Succeed.
After a Friend of the Court Citizen Advisory Committee meeting an
attorney indicated that it seemed that their parenting time motions seem to
fail more frequently than child support motions succeed. This was a
brilliant observation and I wanted to take a quick moment and tell you
why.
...
See 42 USC 655; “Payment to States”;
See 42 USC 658a; “Incentive payments to States”;
...
|
I had come across those USC references a little while ago. Some crazy numbers they are tossing out for "incentive" to kill America's fathers.
From section 658(a):
Quote:
`(A) IN GENERAL- In paragraph (1), the term `incentive payment pool' means--
`(i) $422,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
`(ii) $429,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
`(iii) $450,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;
`(iv) $461,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
`(v) $454,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
`(vi) $446,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
`(vii) $458,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
`(viii) $471,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
`(ix) $483,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
|
I wonder what would be the result of sending this guy's comments as an attachment to a nice letter to the "judge", explaining your intent to persue FOIA requests and other research into the "judge's" financial interests in a child-custody hearing?
There was a link mentioned somewhere here recently to a site in Alaska, and that guy had the actual documents detailing the child support enforcement division's formal agreement with the court(!) to pay all costs related to hearing child-support cases. He suggests this is common practice. This is SERIOUS conflict of interest. Maybe if the "judge" knew one of their victims was aware of, and researching, this sort of thing, they might be inclined to be more fair to this particular person? I don't have enough experience with these monter's motives personally to tell for sure. Vengenace might be the real reaction?