What “transformation?” If you are referring to the Popp case again, you need to take another look, and don’t put so much weight into dicta. And I never said due process was an “option” for the state.

If seems, you need a primer on administrative law and due process. David Usher has an interesting article today about a Missouri case. Although he only uses it to illustrate the incredible stupidity of Judge Limbaugh, the case deals with due process and administrative orders. A similar argument can be made for a collateral challenge of an administrative determination that a father is an “absent parent” under the state act enabling enforcement of child support orders in general. Here is the case:

http://www.courts.mo.gov/courts/pubopinions.nsf/0f87ea4ac0ad4c0186256405005d3b8e/536a51a7f299052a862573840050bcb8?OpenDocument

Also look at South Dakota v. Dole for a primer on State/Federal funding programs. IV-D programs fail every test. State agencies are not controlled by the feds.

If you are talking about the Popp case again, you still don’t get it. Family law was never “transformed” by judicial fiat. Where do you get that? You apparently read too much into dicta.

Anyway, you seem to need a primer on administrative law and due process. David Usher has an interesting article today about a Missouri case. Although he only uses it to illustrate the incredible stupidity of Judge Limbaugh, the case deals with due process and administrative orders. A similar argument can be made for a collateral challenge of an administrative determination that a father is an “absent parent” under the state act enabling enforcement of child support orders in general. Here is the case:

http://www.courts.mo.gov/courts/pubopinions.nsf/0f87ea4ac0ad4c0186256405005d3b8e/536a51a7f299052a862573840050bcb8?OpenDocument

Also, you might want to read South Dakota v. Dole for a handle on State/Federal funding programs. The IV-D program fails every test. State administrative agencies are not under federal control.

What “transformation?” And I never said due process was an “option” for the state.

You need a primer on administrative law and due process. David Usher has an interesting article today about a Missouri case. Although he only uses it to illustrate the incredible stupidity of Judge Limbaugh, the case deals with due process and administrative orders. A similar argument can be made for a collateral challenge of an administrative determination that a father is an “absent parent” under the state act enabling enforcement of child support orders in general. Here is the case:
Roger,

What “transformation?” And I never said due process was an “option” for the state.

You need a primer on administrative law and due process. David Usher has an interesting article today about a Missouri case. Although he only uses it to illustrate the incredible stupidity of Judge Limbaugh, the case deals with due process and administrative orders. A similar argument can be made for a collateral challenge of an administrative determination that a father is an “absent parent” under the state act enabling enforcement of child support orders in general. Here is a link to the case:

http://www.courts.mo.gov/courts/pubopinions.nsf/0f87ea4ac0ad4c0186256405005d3b8e/536a51a7f299052a862573840050bcb8?OpenDocument

Also, see South Dakota v. Dole for a primer on State/Federal funding programs. The IV-D program, as administered, fails every test under this decision. State IV-D agencies are not under “federal control.”

If shared 50/50 was law then kids would win in the situation, however the bullshit parasitic leaches that administer twisted family law would never relinquish control over fathers as they enjoy creating family court file numbers because they some doe rae me to provide a living to pay for the golf club membership and the new BMW . Its the new age business , go to law school and jump on the PAS fractured family gravy train of deceit ! These deluded pious pricks cannot imagine the heartbreak they cause for so many non custodial parents !

Okay, here you go, boys and girls, knock yourself out… below find MND’s Google Adsense earning for the last 3 months.

Google Adsense Earnings and Payments Summary:

May 31 Earnings (May 1 – May 31) – details $634.87
Jun 30 Earnings (Jun 1 – Jun 30) – details $594.47
Jul 31 Earnings (Jul 1 – Jul 31) – details $568.50

Note that our server costs are $415 per month.

Note also that, for the past 2 years or so, MND has been my sole source of income – with the exception of occasional web consulting work.

Note also that over the past two years or so, I have spent – out of my own pocket – roughly $40,000 in software development exclusively for this site (I will prove it with the canceled checks if someone asks).

Note that I still owe the most recent developer (himself an MRA ‘activist’) over $7000 – of which I am able to pay him $50 per month at this time. (I employed this old, slow and expensive developer right up to the point when my personal finances collapsed. My credit is now trashed and my marriage is under great strain because of it. I have a lot to say about this bitter experience, but will shut up about it for now.)

Note that last month I asked the MND community to help me out with the August server costs. Note that – at this time – only a handful of kind (and no doubt equally impoverished) people have donated for this month’s server costs.

Note that I still haven’t covered the August costs, and September is looming.

Enjoy yourself, WLS.

The state’s fail to provide a process to allow an accused “absent parent” to contest the designation made on an application for IV-D services.

There is a common mis-conception among attorneys that no-fault divorce changed everything, and natural guardianship is no longer a protected, inalienable right, demanding a strict scrutiny review before it is terminated by the state.

It is also important to keep in mind the difference between civil and administrative law with respect to government intervention. A private action for alimony and support is very different from an administrative action for child support.

Reform has to start with an understanding of fundamental principles intentionally confused by common mis-application of current legislation.

WLS seems to be playing out this fantasy world where things he says are so important that they get immediatelly cencored!!..just go allong with it!!

It’s true that state law rests on parens patriae power, but that power does not extend to families who are not in need. That would be about 80% of the cases.

This power is also invoked in a custody adjudication. That’s where you have to understand what right is being violated by courts taking charge of children under state ward legislation without questioning the current status of the father as the head of the household. No-fault divorce does not determine his fitness to continue acting as his children’s natural guardian. It only disolves the marriage. The proceeding MAY include a custody determination, but that IS dependent on fault.

A woman abandoning her family for no-fault has no right to custody, and no right to support. Both are dependent on facts that led to the dissolution. A no-fault petition is insufficient if it asks for custody and support without claiming the father is unfit and has failed in his responsibilities as a husband and father. It’s not a policy question. It’s a legal one.

Justice Parker wrote an excellent opinion in Alabama recently, discussing state intervention. Find it here: http://www.bradleyarant.com/publications_opinions.cfm?ID=3661 Look to page 66.

However, it’s not a conspiracy launched on high by Big Brother, it’s the bureaucrats and other petty interests herding the sheep.

Separating couples need to be educated that they don’t have to have a wage assignment—and hence pay through the SDU—and unless the mother receives TANF or the children AFDC-FC, they certainly don’t need to be and most likely won’t benefit from being a case with the IV-D agency.

I do, but I sure would like some accompanyment from this choir!

As for those who profit of it, they are no better than IG Farbin employees and stockholders who profited off the German government’s purchases of ZyKlon B.

In 2005, $3.5 billion in Federal funding was provided to states. In 2006, $3.9 billion.

The total caseload (read: families) is 15.9 million.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/opa/fact_sheets/cse_factsheet.html

Child support enforcement provides jobs and money for the government, specifically:

• State, Tribal, and local Child Support Enforcement agencies;
• Courts, law enforcement agencies, and other entities operating under cooperative agreements with child support enforcement agencies; and,
• The Federal Office of Child Support
• Other components of Federal, State, and local government such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF/Title IV-A), Medicaid (Title XIX), State Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP/Title XXI), child welfare (including Title IV-E and Indian Child Welfare Act) agencies, and non-IV-D State and Tribal agencies that provide Child Support Enforcement
services, Bureaus of Vital Records, Departments of Corrections; and
• Related Federal government agencies that work on particular aspects of the program such as the Departments of Labor, State, Treasury, and the Social Security Administration.

Child support enforcement provides jobs and money for the marketplace, specifically:

• Employers, financial institutions, hospitals, the insurance community, program contractors;
• Family law practitioners, private collection agencies (PCA), public prosecutors, and Tribal court advocates.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2004/Strategic_Plan_FY2005-2009.pdf

All work for divorced women.

Our Federal government provides up to $4.1 billion to States that establish support Orders, collect on amount due, and create arrearages (See 6B, 6C, & 6D)

http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Baskerville writes the truth.

Our Federal government provides up to $4.1 billion to States that establish support orders, collect on amount due, and create arrearages (See 6B, 6C, & 6D).

http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title04/0458.htm

Feminists politicians take money from senior’s retirement (Social Security) to fund their campaign of hate against fathers.

Further, how do they intend to pay the back the money they took?

Feminists take money from senior’s retirement (Social Security) to fund their campaign of hate against fathers.

Further, how do they intend to pay the back the money they took?

It should be opposed as unwise policy: that it’s a socially destrictive, ill-conceived boondoggle.