.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Saturday, February 24, 2007

 
FORMER NBA PLAYER ARRESTED FOR NON-SUPPORT

Former NBA veteran and two-time NBA Champion Jason Caffey was ordered arrested and incarcerated yesterday in Fulton County Superior Court for his failure to pay over $77,000.00 in child support and attorney's fees. The Order further provides that he "shall remain in jail until he pays the full amount and proves that he has medical, dental and life insurance for his child."

What we can not understand is how it got to this point and why it took Fulton County so long to find this guy. If readers are interested in the answer to this question, we suggest that they write Randy Kessler, the attorney for the child's mother, at rkessler@kssfamilylaw.com.

Friday, February 23, 2007

 
SOUTH CAROLINA GOVERNOR TO NAME NEW DSS CHIEF

The State has reported that Governor Mark Sanford is expected to name a new director for the State Department of Social Services today. However, "at least one children’s advocate wonders why it has taken three months to find a leader."

We agree that the delay is inexcusable. However, we are hopeful that more thought was put into this appointment than was put into previous appointments. South Carolina cannot afford to continue to be paying fines for not having a computerized child support enforcement system in place.

Labels: ,


 
FAIR PAYMENT FOR COURT APPOINTED LAWYERS

South Carolina Bar President Bradish J. Waring published the following letter in several newspapers. But, while we do not dispute that many attorneys are underpaid and voluntarily contribute to society, we also note that we are aware of an instance wherein the "losing party" in a family case was ordered to pay his ex-wife's "reasonable" attorney's $450 per hour. The award was reversed on Appeal partially because the South Carolina Court of Appeals found that there was no evidential support in the record to support the lower Court's decision; in other words, the Court of Appeals determined that "the fix was in" on the lower Court level.

The bottom line is that Mr. Waring and some of his friends may have some legitimate complaints. However, unless and until some fee caps are put in place across the board and the word "reasonable" is better defined, we say let things stay as they are.
________________________________________________________________________________

I am obligated to respond to recently published letters in order to dispel misconceptions regarding the court appointment funding crisis in South Carolina.

Particularly egregious is the suggestion that South Carolina lawyers do not hold in the highest regard the lawyers' oath and only begrudgingly provide pro bono services to the indigent. That notion is ludicrous.

The legal profession has historically risen to the defense of the disadvantaged to preserve the interests of justice in society, and this state's lawyers remain true to their calling.

At issue is the real-life impact of the operation of Appellate Court Rule 608, the mechanism by which two-thirds of the practicing lawyers in the state are appointed as counsel or guardians, irrespective of lack of experience or expertise in areas of law that are of critical importance to the citizens involved. For example, lawyers without courtroom experience are routinely assigned to matters as critical as whether someone's parental rights should be terminated. This has resulted in serious inefficiencies in our court system.

Additionally, because little or no funds are allocated to support these appointments, or the costs associated with handling these serious cases, the application of the rule is unconstitutional in several respects. Examples are taking of property without compensation and denial of equal protection. Lawyers are funding filing fees, expert witness fees, deposition fees, etc., out of their own pockets. The rule also places the livelihood of some rural and solo practitioners at risk when they carry open overwhelming case loads on assigned clients, some for as long as 18 years.

Uncompensated appointment systems have been ruled unconstitutional in 11 states. In 1994, our own Supreme Court recognized that, at a certain point, excessive civil appointments may constitute a taking. We believe that point has come.

At the request of the South Carolina Bar, the S.C. Supreme Court recently created the Access to Justice Commission to expand access to civil legal representation to citizens of low and modest means. By improving the present court appointment system, more lawyers will have the opportunity to give back through pro bono service in a manner consistent with their professional training and law practices.

No person, at the risk of loss of a license, should be compelled to provide free services to the point that the ability to earn a livelihood is at risk. Surely, on this simple truth, we can agree. It's time for South Carolina to change the system for the betterment of its citizens.

BRADISH J. WARING
President, South Carolina Bar
205 King St.

Thursday, February 22, 2007

 
LATEST VERSION OF SC GRANDPARENTS' VISITATION BILL

According to the Associated Press, grandparents in South Carolina "can petition for visitation only if one or both of the parents are dead, divorced or living apart." But the following is the latest proposal pending before the South Carolina Legislature:

A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-420, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE FAMILY COURT, INCLUDING JURISDICTION TO ORDER VISITATION FOR GRANDPARENTS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IF THE COURT FINDS THAT THE CHILD'S PARENTS ARE DEPRIVING THE GRANDPARENT VISITATION WITH THE CHILD AND THAT IT IS IN THE CHILD'S BEST INTEREST TO HAVE VISITATION WITH THE GRANDPARENT, THE COURT MAY ORDER SUCH VISITATION.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:SECTION 1. Section 20-7-420(A)(33) of the 1976 Code, as amended by Act 429 of 1994, is further amended to read:

"(33) To order visitation for the grandparent of a minor child if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that:(a) the child's parents or guardian are depriving the grandparent of the opportunity to visit with the child; and(b) it is in the best interest of the child to have visitation with the grandparent.

For purposes of this item, 'grandparent' means the natural or adoptive parent of any parent to a minor child."

SECTION 2. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.

----XX----

In our view, this proposed legislation has the potential to be disastrous. Why should the Court intervene in these types of disputes when the grandchildren are neither in danger nor being mistreated?

Saturday, February 17, 2007

 
BASKETBALL STAR ACCUSED OF "SERIAL INFIDELITY"

The AP reported "that Jason Kidd's estranged wife has charged that the New Jersey Nets' star physically abused her and cheated on her throughout their 10-year marriage." Kidd's lawyer, Madeline Marzano-Lesnevich, has described the filing as "retaliatory and gratuitously nasty." "It contains a fantastical array of information that is exaggerated, manipulated or just plain fabricated," Marzano-Lesnevich said.

In our view, someone has got to be lying. And no one should invent this kind of dirt and interfere with a parent's access to his or her children in order to gain an advantage in a dispute over material assets. Surely the Court can find out who is telling the truth and, once it does so, take severe action.

Thursday, February 15, 2007

 
COMMENT TO MARCH 10, 2006 POST ON "ROE V. WADE FOR MEN"

Following is the comment we received from an anonymous poster to our March 10, 2006 Post in which we opined that we thought that fathers should not be allowed to opt out of supporting their offspring in those situations where the mother refuses either to abort or to place the child up for adoption. Judging from the the failure of anyone to challenge Mr. Anonymous, we must assume that our readers agree with his position.
________________________________________________________
While the suit on its surface may seem outlandish the pendulum has swung so far in the direction of a woman's right to choose, it may take this type of action to get attention to begin the swing back.

Having a vasectomy or "keeping it in your pants" may avoid an unwanted pregnancy, but the same could be said for tubal ligations and the aspirin between the knees method of birth control. However, in the latter case an unwanted pregnancy can be terminated in the first trimester with an abortion and the future dad has no say so.In reading some of the comments of the suit's author on other sites I believe one of the remedies he is seeking is to offer the man the right to opt out of the pregnancy and give up all rights to the child in the same period that the future mom has to terminate the pregnancy for any reason. If he does so, she, then may not be looking at a paycheck each month, but still has the right to keep the child, raise it herself or put the child up for adoption.

The state's position for the man is simply "you played so you pay" and don't put the burden on us. But where is it written that a woman who does not want the unborn child shall. if the father wants the child, carry it to term, give it up to the father who will raise it and then mom pays him child support? This would never happen because the state has decided that women, rightfully so, are not simply breeders. Likewise, men are not simply paychecks.

As for the attorney's involved and the Plaintiff, it seems to me that it takes quite a bit of courage to pursue this type of lawsuit and if they prevail in any manner it may be one step closer for some equality in reproductive rights.

Monday, February 12, 2007

 

SOMEONE IS IN FAVOR OF "ROE V. WADE FOR MEN"

We would like to know who posted the comment to the March 10, 2006 Post. We would also like a response to the questions [If the father wins the case]:

  1. How should we determine which fathers should be required to support their children and which should not be required to support their children?
  2. Should husbands be allowed to opt out of supporting their biological children?
  3. What if a child has disabilities that increase the cost of raising the child, but decrease the likelihood of a successful adoption--should the father be allowed to opt out under those circumstances?
  4. How much would you be willing to increase your taxes in order to support all those children whose fathers opt out of supporting them?"

Until these questions are answered, we do not understand how anyone could logically support allowing fathers to opt out of the duty of support. We note that this is especially true given the fact that the AP reports that, according to U. S. Census figures, out-of-wedlock births in the U.S. are at an all-time high of nearly 40%. This is because, if the fathers are allowed to opt-out, the rest of us will have to help shoulder the financial burden of raising these children.

Labels:


Saturday, February 10, 2007

 
UNWED FATHERS FIGHT FOR BABIES PLACED FOR ADOPTION

This article discusses an injustice worthy of correction and a cause we could support.

 
UTAH CODE-- Title 78 -- Chapter 45g -- UTAH UNIFORM PARENTAGE ACT

This is Utah's version of the "Anti-Paternity Fraud" Statute. It appears fairly well-designed to protect the rights of the children, the parents, and the State.

 
COMMENTS WELCOMED AND ENCOURAGED, HOWEVER...

We both welcome and encourage comments to this BLOG. And, except in rare cases, we will not reject proposed posts. Moreover, we will honor anonymity. However, we note that if everyone posts anonymously there is no way to distinguish between the individuals making the posts.

 
WHO IS ANNA NICOLE SMITH'S BABY DADDY?

At this BLOG, we almost never receive information from biological fathers seeking to assert paternity over their "outside children." Rather, more often than not, we receive information from or about fathers who claim that they are not the father of the "egg donor's" little Bastard" and even if they are, they should not be forced to support the child because "the bitch needs to get a job." So we were somewhat amused when a friend forwarded this link. We would be more amused if the motivations for claiming paternity of this child were not so obvious. We are rooting for the photographer who claimed paternity before the child's birth.

Thursday, February 08, 2007

 
READER COMMENTS TO PATERNITY FRAUD NEWSPAPER OPINION PIECE

Well said!

The emperor has no clothes........the notion that you can replace dad with money and that that money is being spent on the children is absurd.

80% of the prison poplation is from fatherless homes, and mothers can spend CS any way they want since they don't have to account for it to anyone.

Posted by Robert on February 8, 2007 05:13 AM

The Child Support System of this country in reality, practice and design has more to do with a continous effort to collect and funnel enormous amounts of money through a system which realizes vast profits on the backs & misery of the children and non-custodial parents. The Child Support system reaps an enormous amount of interest from collected funds lining their coffers before it is slowly disbursed to Custodial Parents, also from the large amount of undisbursed funds for whatever the reason.

The Child Support System is essentially a Banking operation which does not fall under any national banking laws. There are no periodic statements of accounts provided to the Custodial or the non Custodial parent. ie regarding funds collected against funds disbursed. Therefore, niether party is able to reconcile their Child Support account. There are no milestone child support cut off dates in the system such as with the Social Security administration. Non custodial parents continue to pay child support for children who have pasted their 21th birthday, are no longer with the custodial parent. ie, married, deceased, incarcerated, in the military, left the country, where abouts unknown & etc. Undisbursed funds collected are never returned to the non-custodial parent ,so what is done with these monies? Custodial parents are not required to notify the system if there is a change in their economic situation. There are Child Support awards much greater than the immediate needs of the child that's being squandered by irresponsible Custodial parents instead of being directed to an appropiate savings for the child's future. The term Custodial Parent does not always mean a responsible parent and the Child Support system is more of a profitable government racateering system that hides behind their design and duping the public under the color of law, that their approach on the matter of Child Support is in the Childs best interest. I suppose the aforementioned point and issues are not spoken about in the Media because it's not Politically Correct.

Posted by Lou Robinson on February 8, 2007 08:25 AM

Lou Robinson's comment is the best I've read. It could not be anymore on the mark. Back in the late 80's early 90's, family courts in texas were getting away from awarding alimony and feminists knew they would have to develop a "backdoor" approach to still get alimony without the label. Feminists knew "Child support" would be their meal ticket because there is no accountability. "Child support" is code for alimony. Custodial egg donors and State Attorney Generals hide behind law enforcement to steal money by proxy. They are all cowards and racketeers. What upsets me more though is how many Fathers tolerate it, and how much money they waste on futile legal efforts (attorneys = racketeer) when they should take matters into their own hands. Unfortunately the only way to protect our children and next generation of fathers from bondage and restore justice is through a zero tolerance approach (bloodshed), like fallen hero Herbert Chalmers did when Attorney General of Missouri refused to stop stealing (known as garnishing) his wages for children that were not his. "Every Father that fights, refuses and resists injustice ..... is part of the solution" and "For every Father that conforms to injustice ..... is part of the problem" and "Every Father that does not stand up for what is right ...... makes it harder on his fellow brother"

Steve Hutchings / Texas
Posted by Steve Hutchings on February 8, 2007 02:11 PM

Labels:


Wednesday, February 07, 2007

 
NEW PATERNITY FRAUD BILL INTRODUCED IN COLORADO

In today's edition, the Rocky Mountain Times carried a McCormick/Sacks opinion piece on paternity fraud. The Bill before the legislature would provide paternity fraud victims with the opportunity to utilize DNA Test results to disprove paternity. Read the opinion piece here.

Labels:


Monday, February 05, 2007

 
JANET AND LISA MILLER-JENKINS MADE LOVE IN THE MORNING BEFORE LEAVING FOR THE DOCTOR'S OFFICE

Our prediction is that this is a story that will be long, expensive, and tortuous and whose outcome will be unsatisfacory to everyone involved.

Labels:


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?