A review of Sullivan v. Stroop 496 U.S. 478 (1990) will clear up the connection between “absent parents” and the aid to dependent children act that the child support program was meant to act in tandem with. Also see Clark v. Hernandez (C0-96-997 Minn court of appeals) for due process clarificaiton. Thanks for your input.

Our courts are mostly unwilling to jail a wife for killing her husband or incarcerating a woman for sex with a child, but you’re claiming that you seen and help convict a mother for refusing to pay money to a father.

Your story sounds newsworthy.

Mother did not work and never worked. She was part of a 501(3)c non-profit group claiming to be religious. As a member of the non-profit, she received NO income as defined in law. Thus, as the Supreme Court decision in dissent stated, the magistrate’s findings of “ability to pay” and income was false.

A pagan newspaper, worshiping Satan or the moon or some other object, possibly their genitalia, would conclude and would publish a false statement about the Court. Nothing new here.

I’m sure when Jesus Christ was sentenced to death by being whipped, beaten, speared and nailed to a tree without one shred of evidence that he committed a crime (the Romans declared he was not found guilty of a crime), I’m sure the Vermont Argus published that Jesus was a wife beater and failed to support his children, if that indeed is what the ecclessiastical court (District Court) suggested they write about the Savior’s trial.

The only logical conclusion one can make about the newspaper is that they have the same contempt for the worlds Lord and savior as did the Sadducies and Sanhedrens of ancient Jerusalem.

Nothing new going on here, eh?

Woodman

First, was her divorce and custody order valid? Probably not. Absent a “finding of fact” or “conclusion of law” that she or her spouse “breached” the marital contract, the “dissolution” or “divorce” is void ab nitio.
A statute that doesn’t permit a defense to a claim in a contract is an unconstitutional statute and any order arising from such a statute is void.

Secondly, evenif the divorce is legal and constitutional, the custody order is void. The State does not have “subject matter jurisdiction” to award children, even if the “no-fault” divorce was constitutional. The State can only interfere in the child-parent relationship when the State has found parental unfitness for abandonment, abuse or neglect. Court ordered abandonments, (custody orders) without due process of law or equal protectionf the law is in violation of Vermont and U.S. Constitutions. Single mothers who have been found guilty of neglect are given due process of law by a court when she is given constitutional rights to confront and rebut accusations, allegations, police reports and witnesses that she was neglectful. Parents in no-fault divorce where there are no DEFENSES to the upholding of the civil contract, marriage, and no defenses to a State’s false and malicious claims that they have jurisdiction over “non-wards” of the State is simply absurd. Jurisdiction over children cannot exist simply because the Legislature declares they do. Courts jurisdition exists by Statute AND the Constitution. When courts are failing to review their authority, or in the case of custody, “broad descresionary power” i.e. unlimited, most particularly involving parental rights, i.e. fundamental liberty right, the State’s authority is limited. Parental rights are ordained by our creator, and the State cannot even mention a child’s existance in a court of law involving a fit, natural parent. The Court and State’s claims that they have a “prospective interest” in the childrens welfare, their “future care” is absurd. If indeed the State had a prospective interest in children’s welfare, the State would remove ALL children from lawyers, and then execute the lawyer under the fear that a lawyer would corrupt the morals and ethics of the child prospectively. I call it the “Child Protection Act”. Lawyers who have children must be shot!

The Suspension of driver’s licenses for civil actions unrelated to “public safety” is a violation of a person’s right to travel. The State has lawful authority to regulate driving on the public roadways for “safety purposes”. Drunks who drive are a public safety hazard, and can have their license to drive “revoked” because the State has an interest in “public safety” on public roads. Child support is unrelated to “public safety”, driving or operating a motor vehicle. Thus, it is unconstitutional to compell people to pay a lawful child support order and suspend a driver’s licence for “punishment to compel”. Driving a car is a right, not a privilage. (See Stone v State of Minnesota)

The Vermont Court only affirmed one thing in this case. They are UNFIT to hold any position of public trust.

Woodman

You fellows—Knight and FamilyLawyer—are such
birds of a feather: really two peas in a pod.

AMUNRUD adresses a distinctly different issue
from MOSS, but does raise an interesting question:
just how rational does a state action have to be
to be `rationally related’? There’s little precedent:
not so irrational as to be arbitrary has usually
been the answer—and the spirit of LOCKNER would
steer the courts away from social policy making.

Not everything that’s not unconstitutional is right,
wise, or good.

Sureeeeeeeee you have……..

Forgive me if I don’t believe the words of a “family Lawyer”.

Deadbeats come in all genders.

Poor Roger Knight. Just another deadbeat who has been making the same idiotic argument for years about anti-peonage in an effort to rejoice in being a deadbeat and play the role of the victim. Get real Roger. Your legal arguments have absolutely legal or logical basis.

I’ve not heard of a woman a woman receive the same punish.