“Support System Down” Explores Child Support Nightmares
“I’m a dad, not a wallet.”
What may prompt millions of non-custodial dads to say this phrase — or at least think it? How is it that millions of children of divorce or separation may wonder why they can’t see their beloved Dad, or sometimes Mom, more than 4 to 6 days a month, if that?
These are just two of the important questions raised by Angelo Lobo, Producer and Director of the full-length documentary “Support System Down,” which examines problems within the nation’s child support system.
Lobo’s film “Support System Down” comes to the Ohmann Theatre in Lyons, New York on August 13, 2008 starting at 7 pm, EDT and to the Angelika Film Center in Plano, Texas on August 14, 2008 at 7 pm, CDT.
The film contends that many fathers, and some mothers, can’t even get their “visitation” court orders enforced. The system’s unfairness can also affect our military men and women. Parents want equal parenting — not “visitor” status. Most parents don’t have to be convinced to do the right thing in supporting their children; they already are willing and able to do that. Nevertheless, many believe that the family court and child support systems treat them and their families unjustly. The children suffer the most.
“We created this film to expose the serious unfairness in the system in order to help effect positive change for millions of families — men, women, and children. The situation is beyond absurd. We have loving, fit fathers, who want to be there and support their children, who are unfairly prevented from doing so. On the other hand, we have men proven by DNA testing not to be the dad, yet they are forced to financially support children they may not even know and did not father,” said Lobo.
Angelo Lobo hopes his film can contribute greatly to the effort of raising nationwide public awareness.
“Both mothers and fathers are tired of being unfairly vilified, pursued and stereotyped when it comes to financial child support. They say it doesn’t help their children or families when the main breadwinner is devastated, humiliated, threatened, or constantly pursued by a misguided and ill-informed system. Unfair, illogical, harsh, punitive measures against alleged nonpayers, such as lifting driver’s and professional licenses and jail, are not helping children and families,” said Lobo.
“I wanted to convey these loving parents’ stories in a compelling way and to give these parents a powerful voice. Children want and need both parents in their lives. Children suffer and miss their parents when they’re unjustly separated from them following divorce or family breakup. They need adequate time with both parents, which often doesn’t happen in our current system,” said Lobo.
For information or to book Angelo Lobo for interviews, visit http://www.supportthemovie.com , call (888)881-3118 or (760)889-8815, or email info@supportthemovie.com
Subscribe: free e-mail mailing list at http://www.supportthemovie.com To receive announcements about “Support? System Down”
View trailers: http://www.supportthemovie.com/trailers/
| More from NewsWax
Stumble It!
August 10th, 2008 at 12:18 am
Don’t panic! I’ve checked listings for the Angelika Film Center in Plano for the 14th, and Support System Down is not on the list.
I’ve already sent an email to info@supportthemovie.com – and will post a response when I get one.
August 10th, 2008 at 7:29 am
I take it you just show up – tickets are $8
http://supportthemovie.com/news/
RESPONSE:
Remember this is a one night special event. We only have the theater rented so they will not advertise for us.
Anyone who would like to confirm can speak to this person.
Promotions & Events Director
Angelika Film Center ~ Plano
7205 Bishop, Suite E6
Plano, TX 75024
972.943.1310
sandyt@angelikafilmcenter.com
http://www.angelikafilmcenter.com
http://www.angelikablog.com
August 10th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
If you only see your child 1/2 day a week, then it is only your child for 1/2 day a week. That means you should pay 1/14 of the cost of supporting that child. Any more than that is extortion by the state and the mother.
If you pay your 1/14 (or whatever the percentage is in your case) you are not a deadbeat. Most so-called ‘deadbeat dads’ are simply refusing to pay state-imposted extortion fees and should be treated as heros not ‘deadbeats’.
August 11th, 2008 at 1:49 am
Zorik:
Current levels of “child support” are set arbitrarily high; even with consideration for children’s needs (not 1/14 of them) and the relative ability of parents to meet those needs. What’s being charged is not actually child support in any rational, reasonable sense of the term.
The Alimony Hidden in Child Support (My first article published at MND.)
Tutorials in Child Support Decision Theory (Results of my core research on the subject.)
August 11th, 2008 at 7:06 am
The next documentary that should be made is ” Child Support, A good idea gone bad” The whole concept of child support is that parents should take care of their children, which is absolutely right. But the problem is a bunch of adults, ie women who run off with kids and their state codefendants have turned a good thing into a government sponsored kidnapping and extortion racket.
We need to keep some form of a child support system as it will always be needed. But we need to pass, then enforce joint physical/legal custody and shared parenting to make,in most cases, a child support system unecessary.
The problem is that power and money corrupts and the corrupt bastards who run this little “extortion racket” are getting rich stealing our kids and stealing our money. They won’t stop without being made to.
This is the key thing that gets in the way of having shared parenting and joint custody. They don’t care if your rights as a parent a respected or not, they just want the money. Cutting off the money is the way to put these “terrorist” out of business.
You can cut off the money, power and control. The fact is that most judgments of the courts and that includes judgments for child support are void judgments and the courts, corrupt as they are , can be compelled to vacate, or get rid of them. You can restore the balance and that I believe is the only way to ever force these bastards to adopt shared parenting and joint custody. Once the money is gone and they are facing criminal charges for fraud, extortion and kidnapping, they will go away. Oh it will not be easy, some these bastards will have to go to jail to put the fear of God in them and to put a stop to their little racket. But it can be done
And the women will have to get used to the fact that their little ” reign of queenship” is now over and they will have to behave themselves and abide by rules, just like men have always had to do, but they will do it, then we will see just how equal these women really want to be!
August 11th, 2008 at 7:59 am
Robert: You don’t have any legal rights as a parent or individual rights related to child support actions. Here’s how they disappeared. The fed. built a multi-billion dollar a year child support enforcement (pork barrel) system, but family law is not within their constitutional province. It is a state / individual issue. In order to allow continued involvement (and pork), federal courts reclassified family law from civil law to “social policy.” (See P.O.P.S. v Gardner) Social (and economic) policy apply to things like welfare entitlements and taxes. They are areas that exist and function by arbitrary political control. They are in an entirely different world than civil law when it comes to constitutional review. In matters of social (and economic) policy, arbitrary government intrusion is not seen as a problem and there is no defense against it.
The federal child support enforcement system is nothing more than a pork barrel program. It is entirely unnecessary and a waste of taxpayer dollars and could be eliminated without detriment to society; the fed. could get out of the family law business where it doesn’t belong. In fact, when signing the bill that created the program – President Ford said it took the fed. too far into domestic relations and said he would introduce legislation to correct it. Creation of the program was an amendment to more popular social services legislation and had little support at the time. It only became popular among politicians as the amount of pork grew.
If saving marriage and family needs to be done by a constitutional amendment – the purpose of the amendment should be to return family law to civil law where it belongs.
August 11th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
You state the problem. Here is the solution:
We can always scream for the enforcement of the Peonage Law, and plead it in our court filings.
It has the advantage of already being a statute on the books, no need to lobby Congress to get something passed.
Just use what is already there.
Making a person a slave for a debt or obligation is a FELONY. And such state court orders are declared null and void.
It takes NUMBERS and publicity to prevail on such a question.
Perhaps the fathers’ rights movement ought to embrace the 13th Amendment and the Antipeonage Act the way the National Rifle Association and the gun rights advocates embraced the Second Amendment.
Just a suggestion.
August 12th, 2008 at 3:34 am
Roger Knight: It’s been tried. The argument was soundly rejected. Sorry I can’t give you the case or cases. I just remember reading through one or two decisions on the matter. I can’t even recall the details of the decision, other than – no way – the court doesn’t accept that argument as valid. They wrote as though it was ridiculous.
You cite constitutional amendments and civil rights that don’t work when social policy analysis is used. I’ve continually had a difficult time getting that point across, although I think I’m being as straight-forward as possible in the way that I explain it. Under social policy analysis, there are no individual rights – nothing connected with constitutional rights other than equal protection – meaning that arbitrary government control is allowed so long as they’re consistent – i.e. do it en masse.
That’s why state courts are now reasoning that same-sex marriage is constitutionally mandated. It’s not a change of heart at some deeper level – it’s a change in constitutional analysis. Ration and reason and logical meaning are no longer involved – only equal treatment related to equal status and benefits of arbitrary laws and government programs.
August 12th, 2008 at 6:47 am
Roger, when we were litigating the peonage issue, how much publicity support did you give our efforts? Where was your positive attitude when we could have most used it? We all know that the courts behave differently when there is publicity support for those pushing their arguments.
That is why we are seeing victories by the gay rights activists. Instead of negative attitudes they have received considerable publicity support and they go forward with both a POSITIVE attitude and in NUMBERS.
That is also how we won the recent decision that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. There are numerous judges who are as hostile to that interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as they are to the proposition that the 13th Amendment protects divorced fathers and that child support is a “debt or obligation or otherwise” within the meaning of the Antipeonage Act. The DIFFERENCE is that none of the gun rights activists and especially the NRA have been bashful about screaming for the enforcement of the Second Amendment.
I did not say it is easy!
For many years, courts soundly rejected the argument that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. Yet a few years ago cracks started appearing in this facade. Dr. Emerson’s case a few years ago. Then the Silveira dissent in the 9th Circus by Judge Kozinsky, who was such an asshole with Jeff Ballek’s 13th Amendment claim. And now this new Supreme Court decision striking down the DC gun ban.
As we are experts on family law, we are all aware of the anti-miscegenation statutes, prohibiting marriages between persons of different races. Loving v. Virginia was SECOND victory by a mixed race couple. The first was the California Supreme Court Perez decision in 1948. Every other state appellate court upheld the validity of anti-miscegenation statutes.
You are absolutely right about the social policy analysis. But the way to cut through that is with a simple easy to understand constitutional argument, one that can be communicated to the PUBLIC. The PUBLIC understands “What part of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” do you not understand?” The PUBLIC understands that banning mixed race marriages denies equal protection of the laws, particularly where the state is claiming an interest in preventing the birth of mixed-race people.
Like Barack Obama. Whatever we think of Barack Obama, we understand that any claim that a state has in the prevention of his birth is patently absurd!
The PUBLIC understands that when gasoline is $4 per gallon and heating oil is $6 per gallon, drilling could improve the supply and thus reduce the price.
And the PUBLIC understands that slavery is illegal. All we got to do is convince them that stripping parents of cusotdy of their children does not justify a FELONY.
Why do you think the mainstream media has placed the cone of silence around any mention of the 13th Amendment or the Antipeonage Act in the same story as child support?
Because if 13 members of any grand jury in any of the 93 federal judicial districts figures this one out, ALL HELL WILL BREAK LOOSE!!!
But to get there, the proposition that child support does not justify slavery and involuntary servitude has to be embraced and supported with enthusiasm by the whole of the fathers’ rights community.
That includes you, Roger Gay.
That includes you, Marc Rudov.
That includes you, Glenn Sacks.
And for anyone else, please do not be offended for not listing your name, for it includes you too!
I’m not asking you to give up your other arguments. You are right, of course. Just persue this one too, it is the SOLUTION to all of these problems.
Here is a simple, easy to understand slogan:
As there is no excuse for domestic violence, neither is there any excuse for violating the United States Constitution.
There is no excuse for peonage.
There is no excuse for imprisonment for debt.
There is no excuse for denying divorced parents the equal protection of state constitutions that prohibit imprisonment for debt.
Social policy analysis is no damned excuse!
And I can tell you this: Article I Section 17 of the Washington State Constitution prohibits imprisonment for debt, except in cases of absconding debtors. When we deny a class of persons the equal protection of this provision, they DISAPPEAR!!!!!
And that is why so many absent parents are ABSENT!
Duh.
See how EASY these arguments are to make? In nice little sound bites. Say it, and the public gets it!
And when the public gets it, the politicians and the judges will follow. Kicking and screaming, but they will follow.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:51 am
Well – not sure if you want me to defend myself, but I did serve as an expert witness (pro bono) in P.O.P.S. v. Gardner, then there’s my research to deal with the technical problem of how to calculate just and appropriate child support amounts
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5910/CS_Project/index.htm
and then, since 2002, you can look through this list of articles:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/g/gay/index.htm
I can find several articles that point directly to the constitutional problems and many battling anti-father propaganda and corruption.
August 12th, 2008 at 10:56 am
all very interesting discourse. But the thing that I don’t understand is how does the state have authority to “impute” your income and then jail you if you do not make that amount of money?
In an intact family, a man spends what he wants to spend on his kids.
Once the State gets involved, you no longer have that “right”. The State dictates how much you must make and how much you must turn over for “child support”.
How can this be valid?
August 12th, 2008 at 11:45 am
roger –
I know this will appear repetitious, but I swear, somebody besides me is going to get it one day. They’re misapplying the “social policy” classification. In an honest world – the state does not have the authority to do those things – because they would be stopped by the constitution. But they are applying a different standard, with the intent of denying the rights that you and everyone else are entitled to.
They don’t actually have the legal authority in other words. The state at this point is acting as a criminal organization, using the mechanisms and power of the state for criminal activities.
August 12th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Thank you for the validation.
That is exactly how it feels. Particularly when outsourcing and unemployment have such a presence in today’s job market.
It stinks, I tell ya.
August 12th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
roger: Have you read Stephen Baskerville’s book yet? That’ll give you some validation for sure.
If you want some more rapid reading, you can cruise through my articles archive.
August 13th, 2008 at 7:34 am
Mr Gay, you are like most people and like I was until I started doing the research. Ignorance of the law and how it really works is how these bastards get by with so many abuses.
I have already pushed the child support terrorist out of my life. This method I found does work! I got rid of the eight hundred pound gorilla and got rid of the hugh debt they saddled me with. These bastard still have to obey the law, even if they don’t like it.
This process is not easy and I had to try several times to be sucessful. You have to learn that any court decision, and that includes judgments for child support have to have what is called subject matter jurisdiction. This jurisdiction has seven elements and all those elements must be in evidence,they must existe. I have discoved that 99.9% of the time, the court that makes that judgment is lacking 1 or the usual number is 3 of those elements. The whole judgment is a void and is void inabnito, ie no good from the begining and all the debt they tried to pile on you has to go away.
You can start by getting on that “new fangled invention” called the internet and look up an old boy from Oklahoma, named Richard Cornforth They call him Mr Void judgment, because he is sucessful most of the time.
Once the judgment and the debt it creates are gone, the federals and their “matching fund program” are cut off at the source. Once the state cannot legally steal from you and once they start starving for funds, that will be the begining of the end of this God awful racket. And doubtless, when the money starts getting cut off, there will be an investigation, a big one. Once is discovered that these “state actors” routinely violate the law and people discover how to pierce their immunity and successfully prosecute them, things will change.
Irroncially enough is that the aforementioned federals who have funded this racket will be the ones force by law to prosecute the child support terrorist and many of them will lose their jobs and if there is any justice in the world will get to see the inside of a jail cell as well.
The system will fall apart, it is not if, but when it will collaspe and anyone who ever had anything to do with it will be held sternly accountable. It will happen.
August 13th, 2008 at 7:54 am
Anyone who has studied the law, like I have, know that since the Erie v Tompkins decision in 1938 we have been under Admiraly jurisdiction, ie law of the sea applied to land and the courts, ( well they are not really court anymore) apply only commercial law and the constitution has absolutely nothing to do with it.
As for as this PEE ON thing is concerned, under this “admiraly jurisdiction ( contract law) you have unknowingly and unintentionally given them the right to treat you anyway they like. The only way to fight them is to use their own rules against them, they have to obey their own rules, reguardless if they win or not. That is not really fighting them, it is just making it way too much trouble for them to mess with you. Once it cost them money and they get into trouble by their own rules, they will back off and look for an easier mark.
You have to minimize you involvement with “their system” and take steps to deter them from harassing you, once you “opt out” ie live privately and don’t take any more government help, they lose track of you pretty quickly.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Challenging jurisdiction used to be the first thing lawyers did whenever they became involved a new interstate case. The fed. pushed that over to pretty much auto-jurisdiction wherever the custodial parent lives. I’ve never heard of courts having problems with subject matter jurisdiction in divorce cases.
August 14th, 2008 at 5:12 am
Roger Knight: The Sex & Metro section carries a link today that may in some way follow up your comments on public information.
August 15th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
So how did it go?
March 8th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
we gave my kid up for adopition thur the court and they trying to make me pay child support.well the mother ketp the kid.we was’nt married and we was a one nite stand she left for 6yrs.i though the kid was with a new family.Yes for 6yrs i made a lot of changes in my life why do i have to pay.what can i do i got a lawyer and hes workin for them. someone tell me something