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

Sunday, July 31, 2011

 
ILLINOIS CONGRESSMAN MAY OWE $117K IN PAST DUE CHILD SUPPORT

The following article was filed by the Associated Press.

CHICAGO (AP) — Illinois Rep. Joe Walsh, the tea party-backed Republican who squeaked into office last year by vowing to bring fiscal responsibility to Washington and who has been one of President Barack Obama's most outspoken critics during the standoff over the debt ceiling, is being sued for more than $100,000 in unpaid child support, a newspaper reported.The freshman congressman's ex-wife, Laura Walsh, filed the claim against him in December as part of their divorce case, saying he owed $117,437 to her and their three children, the Chicago Sun-Times reported in a story published Wednesday. She contends that Walsh loaned his own campaign $35,000 and took international vacations but said he couldn't afford child support payments because he was between jobs or out of work. "Joe personally loaned his campaign $35,000, which, given that he failed to make any child support payments to Laura because he 'had no money' is surprising," Laura Walsh's attorneys wrote in the motion. "Joe has paid himself back at least $14,200 for the loans he gave himself."

Walsh, whose campaign was marked by allegations of financial mismanagement, said he thought he and his ex-wife were coming to an agreement on the money owed, according to a February court filing. His attorney, R. Steven Polachek, denied that the congressman owed $117,437 in back child support and interest and said the amount was much less.

"I dispute that he owes the child support that she's claiming or anywhere near that amount," Polachek said. "Joe Walsh hasn't been a big-time wage-earner politician until recently — he's had no more problems with child support than any other average guy."

Joe and Laura Walsh were married for 15 years when she filed for divorce in 2002. He has since remarried.

A phone message left Thursday at Walsh's congressional office wasn't immediately returned, and his spokeswoman did not immediately respond to an e-mail seeking comment.

Walsh, 49, unexpectedly captured his northeastern Illinois district last year by a slim margin, campaigning on a promise to reign in government spending and promoting his conservative values, among other things. He has recently gained notoriety for speaking out against the president and accusing him of lying about the impact of not raising the national debt ceiling.

"President Obama, quit lying," he said in a video posted online this month. In it he also asks Obama, "Have you no shame, sir?

"Walsh said there is "plenty of money" to pay debt and cover Social Security even if the limit isn't raised, and that Obama won't get congressional approval to increase the $14.3 trillion debt limit unless the Democratic president backs a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, which Obama opposes. Obama says the country will default if Congress doesn't raise the ceiling by Aug. 2.

The congressman's alleged financial problems made headlines while he was campaigning last year, when at least one staffer claimed he would "spend, spend, spend uncontrollably."

His campaign manager quit and sued for $20,000 in nonpayment, and two other staffers who quit accused him of not properly disclosing a 2008 home foreclosure and traffic citations to the public, taking their grievances public. Walsh also bounced checks, including one to a Republican fundraiser.

A Walsh spokesman at the time called it a smear campaign by disgruntled workers and said the congressman had learned from his financial struggles, including the foreclosure.
___
Information from: Chicago Sun-Times, http://www.suntimes.com/index


Labels: , ,


Tuesday, July 12, 2011

 
TURNIP MISTAKEN FOR DEADBEAT AND JAILED IN SOUTH CAROLINA

The article "Supreme Court Weighs Rights Of 'Deadbeat' Parents," discusses the South Carolina case of Michael Turner who was a "Turnip" mistaken for a "Deadbeat." "Deadbeats," according to author Elaine Sorensen, "are parents who could pay but choose not to." "'Turnips'—"invoking the phrase, 'You can't get blood out of a turnip'—are parents who don't have the money to pay." Turnip Turner had no money to pay either his ex-spouse or an attorney to plead his case, so he was sentenced to jail.

Labels: , ,


Wednesday, June 29, 2011

 
CIVIL CONTEMPT, INDIGENT PARENTS, AND DUE PROCESS IN SOUTH CAROLINA



A review of "Civil cases don't require lawyer: Justices split 5-4 along ideological lines in case of S.C. man sent to jail over child support payments" would lead one to believe that the ACLU took a beating in this case. However, a review of the Supreme Court Order itself tells a remarkably different story. On behalf of the Court, Justice Breyer wrote:





South Carolina’s Family Court enforces its child support orders by threatening with incarceration for civil contempt those who are (1) subject to a child support order, (2) able to comply with that order, but (3) fail to do so. We must decide whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause requires the State to provide counsel (at a civil contempt hearing) to an indigent person potentially faced with such incarceration. We conclude that where as here the custodial parent (entitled to receive the support) is unrepresented by counsel, the State need not provide counsel to the noncustodial parent (required to provide the support). But we attach an important caveat, namely, that the State must nonetheless have in place alternative procedures that assure a fundamentally fair determination of the critical incarceration-related question, whether the supporting parent is able to comply with the support order.



The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the Appellant had not received the requisite Due Process, reversed the Ruling of the South Carolina Supreme Court, and remanded the case back to the South Carolina Supreme Court for further proceedings. Specifically the Court found:




The record indicates that Turner received neither counsel nor the benefit of alternative procedures like those we have described. He did not receive clear notice that his ability to pay would constitute the critical question in his civil contempt proceeding. No one provided him with a form (or the equivalent) designed to elicit information about his financial circumstances. The court did not find that Turner was able to pay his arrearage, but instead left the relevant “finding” section of the contempt order blank. The court nonetheless found Turner in contempt and ordered him incarcerated. Under these circumstances Turner’s incarceration violated the Due Process Clause. We vacate the judgment of the South Carolina Supreme Court and remand the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Ultimately, the trial judge’s misunderstanding of basic legal procedural and substantive tenets will unnecessarily cost the State of South Carolina millions of dollars in the future. And what is interesting is that, not only was this uncomplicated case botched, but it was botched by U. S. Senator Lindsey Graham’s former law partner and most recent nominee to the Federal Bench. And if he can not handle simple cases and make sure that all the blanks are filled in, maybe Federal Court is not the best place to send him.

Labels: , ,


Monday, April 18, 2011

 
ANOTHER BAD IDEA: "DORCHESTER COUNTY MIGHT LEASE JAIL"

According to "Dorchester County might lease jail<" ”The Dorchester County center occasionally holds more than 300 inmates in a facility built for half that number. The building is not up to code, has security problems and safety issues. The needs are critical, according to architects who recently reviewed the center. The legal liability alarms council.”

We wonder how many of the Dorchester County inmates are convicts and how many are incarcerated because they are in arrears on their child support obligations and lack the ability to address the debt. We also wonder how all the "fines" and "fees" accessed against "Deadbeat Dads" are being utilized and how much these revenues total. And until these questions are answered, we do not think that there is any point in discussing building a new jail, much less discussing how the construction and operation of that new jail is going to be financed.

Labels: ,


Thursday, April 22, 2010

 
JAILING INDIGENTS FOR NON-SUPPORT IN SOUTH CAROLINA MAY NOT BE COERCING PAYMENTS

In "S.C. High Court Upholds Jail for Indigent Parents," Rick Brundrett wrote, “If imprisoning indigent parents improves collection rates, it’s hard to tell that by looking at the overall numbers.”

The recently released Child Support Enforcement FY ‘07 Annual Report to Congress casts further doubt on whether jailing indigent parents for non-payment of child support is an effective strategy for reducing child support arrearages in South Carolina--note the South Carolina data on Table 71: Total Amount of Arrearages Due for All Fiscal Years for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years.

Simply stated, if jailing those who cannot pay could induce them to pay, we should be seeing a steady decrease in the total child support arrearages. However, not only are we seeing a fairly steady increase in the total arrearages, but it should also be kept in mind that, although Table 71 is the most recently released federal document, it contains non-current pre-recession data. Therefore, when the post-recession data is available, we suspect that the arrearages will be shown to have increased dramatically.

Labels: , ,


Tuesday, April 13, 2010

 

SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS DEBTOR'S PRISONS

In "S.C. High Court Upholds Jail for Indigent Parents," Rick Brundrett writes:

In South Carolina, family court judges can throw indigent parents behind bars for non-payment of child support even if they cannot afford attorneys.

The Palmetto State is one of only five states that don’t guarantee indigent parents the right to counsel in civil contempt hearings that can result in jail time, the S.C. Supreme Court said in a March 29 ruling (Price v. Turner, opinion no. 26793), which was ignored by other media outlets.

"We recognize that … we are adopting the minority position," Chief Justice Jean Toal, writing for the court, said in a footnote in the ruling. "However, we are persuaded that the minority position held by Florida, Maine, New Hampshire and New Mexico is sound and in keeping with controlling precedent."

The U.S. Supreme Court, however, in a 1981 ruling involving a North Carolina termination of parent rights case, said that the right of an indigent defendant to have an appointed attorney isn’t just reserved for criminal cases, noting that the "defendant’s interest in personal freedom … triggers the right to appointed counsel."

The five-member S.C. Supreme Court unanimously ruled against a coalition of state and national legal groups that submitted a joint legal brief urging the justices to set aside an Oconee County Family Court judge’s civil contempt order in 2008.

The groups included the S.C. office of the American Civil Liberties Union, the S.C. Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the National Legal Aid & Defender Association, and the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law.

"The South Carolina Family Court nevertheless has imprisoned hundreds, and likely thousands, of indigent defendants for nonpayment of support without appointed counsel," the groups said in their friend-of-the-court brief.

"These defendants languish in modern-day debtors’ prisons after patently unfair proceedings, many of which lack any factual findings," the brief added. "Often the courts do not even inquire into the defendant’s ability to pay their support obligation."

The number of indigent parents imprisoned statewide on contempt charges is unknown, as are child support collection rates for that group. Neither the S.C. Judicial Department nor the state Department of Social Services keeps records on those numbers, according to spokeswomen for the agencies.

Total statewide child support collection rates are barely above 50 percent, DSS records show.

Victoria Middleton, executive director of the S.C. ACLU, told The Nerve last week that imprisoning indigent parents can wind up costing taxpayers more in the long run.

"The state really needs to adequately fund and administer a public defender system," she said.

The S.C. Supreme Court in recent years has been pressured by the S.C. Bar, the state’s professional organization for lawyers, to change the way private attorneys are appointed by courts to represent indigents because of shortfalls in state funds to pay those lawyers.

Greenville attorney Derek Enderlin, who handled the appeal of Michael Turner – the parent at the center of the Supreme Court ruling – told The Nerve last week that his client likely will appeal the March 29 decision.

Turner was sentenced by Oconee Family Court Judge Timothy Cain on Jan. 3, 2008, to one year in jail after he was found in civil contempt for failing to pay $5,728.76 in child support, court records show.

Turner, who appeared by himself, was not informed by Cain of his right to an attorney, according to the legal brief submitted by the ACLU and other legal groups.

Turner presented evidence that he was indigent, telling Cain he had broken his back and was seeking disability, though the judge made no finding on his indigent status, the groups said in their brief.

Turner served the full year in jail and has since served another six months, Enderlin told The Nerve, adding he was out for only a few months before he was ordered back to jail.

Turner in court papers contended his constitutional rights to an attorney and due process were violated. But the Supreme Court in its ruling said he wasn’t entitled to a lawyer because he was found in civil contempt, as opposed to criminal contempt.

"The purpose of civil contempt is to coerce the defendant to comply with the court’s order," the justices wrote. "In contrast, criminal contempt is intended to punish a party for disobedience and disrespect. … A (person) imprisoned for civil contempt is said to hold the keys to his cell because he may end the imprisonment and purge himself of the sentence at any time by doing the act he had previously refused to do."

The ACLU and other legal groups in their brief said that "whether the proceeding is deemed civil rather than criminal in nature does not diminish the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to appointed counsel, because the defendant’s liberty interest is the preeminent factor."

"If this Court does not immediately address this obvious constitutional violation, it will be giving the lower courts carte blanche to imprison South Carolina citizens without ever providing them the benefit of an attorney to safeguard their rights," the groups said.

If imprisoning indigent parents improves collection rates, it’s hard to tell that by looking at the overall numbers. For last fiscal year, a total of $174.1 million in child support was collected in South Carolina out of $339.7 million owed, or a collection rate of 51.25 percent, according to DSS records.

Last year’s collection rate was slightly higher than in fiscal year 2008, though that rate was more than 10 percentage points below the national collection rate, records show.
Although we agree that South Carolina's collection rates are pitiful, we cannot completely vouch for the accuracy of Mr. Brundrett's figures. Still, we agree that imprisoning indigents for failure to meet their financial obligations does not appear to be a very effective strategy for solving the problem.

Labels: , , ,


Tuesday, April 06, 2010

 
ELEVEN INMATES SUE OVER JAIL CONDITIONS IN ORANGEBURG COUNTY SC

According to "11 inmates sue over jail conditions," "Eleven inmates have filed lawsuits against the Orangeburg-Calhoun Regional Detention Center in U.S. District Court over living conditions. Inmates claim they’ve suffered malfunctioning toilets and showers, don’t receive prescription medication in a timely manner and have no emergency call system in their cells, among other things." The article goes on to say:
Last July, the Regional Detention Center was cited for housing sentenced and pre-trial inmates together. Other violations cited were the lack of two-way emergency intercom systems in individual cells and failure to give inmates required outdoor exercise time due to staffing shortages.

The state fire marshal’s office also cited the detention center for potential fire hazard violations, including the storage of combustible materials in rooms with electrical equipment. S.C. Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation spokesman Jim Knight said Monday the fire marshal’s office is scheduled to re-inspect the facility.

Many of the inmates who sued in federal court are being held for non-payment of child support.

Child support inmates usually make up half or more of the total population, which averages about 400 inmates.

One complains he is in jail for child support, “and they got me lock down like a hard criminal for 18 hours a day. Do you think that’s fair to a person that don’t have no charge just in here for child support? Can’t go out to work because the jail charge you $5 dollars a day when you go out if you go out. Child support still running when you in jail it never stops ...
The way that things are headed, South Carolina could lock up half its population and still not reduce its child support arrearage. Maybe it is time to rethink the way the State is doing things and to revisit the question "Who is Benefiting from the Incarceration of 'Deadbeats'?"

Labels: , , , ,


Wednesday, March 31, 2010

 
SC SUPREME COURT RULES: NO SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO APPOINTED COUNSEL FOR INDIGENTS IN NONSUPPORT CIVIL CONTEMPT CASES

Frankly, we are surprised with the decision of the South Carolina Supreme Court in the Case of Price v. Turner. We think that the argument advanced by the A. C. L. U. in its Amici Curiae Brief is more legally and logically sound than the Court's reasoning in Price. We also think that it is intellectually dishonest to pretend that (a). these cattle call Rule Hearings involve any semblance of Due Process; (b.) only willful contemnors are ever incarcerated;* and, (c.) any objective observer would conclude that even the majority of these "Deadbeats" possess "the keys to their own jail cells."

Unfortunately, we suspect that the South Carolina Supreme Court had no other choice than to rule in this manner given. As noted in "South Carolina Statehouse Report," South Carolina Supreme Court Chief Justice Jean Toal is essentially having to beg the General Assembly for funding; moreover she has indicated that she wants all the fines and fees generated through the Courts to be used to fund the operation of the Courts.

It goes without saying that if more "Deadbeats" were represented by counsel, fewer would go to jail for contempt and the Courts would receive fewer fines and fees. So there may be an inherent conflict of interest in the South Carolina Supreme Court deciding whether indigents are entitled to a level playing field in their endeavors to avoid paying fees and fines to the Court. Still, the bigger question remains whether incarcerating (warehousing) indigents for non-support is going to "solve for pattern." By definition, indigents do not have money, income, and assets to meet their financial obligations. Therefore, incarcerating them for a year does not create wealth, but only transfers the burden of providing food, clothing, shelter--and sometimes very expensive medical care--from the backs of the indigent "Deadbeats" to the backs of the taxpayers.

While it may be viscerally satisfying and psychologically uplifting to some folks to see the county jails filled to the brim with indigent "Deadbeats," creating Debtor's Prisons, regardless of what you call them, is still--in our view--bad public policy. But good policy or no, given the state of the economy and South Carolina's recent commitment to track down and crack down on "Deadbeats," we anticipate that the county jails will soon be bursting at the seams with indigent contemnors to a point that there will be no space left for either misdemeanor and work release convicts or for the really bad criminals awaiting bond hearings or trials. Where to place those categories of folks will present a greater and greater challenge for the Circuit Court Judges and County Magistrates.

*According to Is the Application of civil contempt in South Carolina’s “daddy round-ups” improper? by Charleston County attorney Gregory S. Forman, Esquire:
Almost every state in the Southeast had determined that it is improper to hold a delinquent parent in jail if he or she lacks the capacity to pay the full amount owed. Ex parte Rojo, 925 S.W.2d 654 (Tex. 1996); Ex parte Talbert, 419 So. 2d 240, 241 (Ala. Civ. App. 1982); In Re Nichols, 749 So. 2d 68 (Miss. 1999); McMiller v. McMiller, 77 N.C.App. 436, 335 S.E.2d 187 (1985); Lee v. Lee, 78 N.C. App. 632, 337 S.E.2d 690 (1985); Lynch v. Lynch, 342 Md. 509, 677 A.2d 584 (1996).

Labels: , ,


Saturday, March 20, 2010

 
CHILD SUPPORT AND DEBTOR’S PRISON

From time-to-time we comment on the issue of incarcerating people for failure to pay support obligations. We try to remain even-handed on the subject. In that vein, information at this link presents the con side of the argument and poses some valid questions about the use of the contempt powers of the Courts against individuals who have no ability to comply with the Court's Orders.

Labels: , ,


Friday, February 19, 2010

 
TABLE 6: CASES WITH ARREARS DUE AND CASES PAYING TOWARDS ARREARS, FY 2008

Members of the South Carolina General Assembly and the Director of the South Carolina CSED may want to review "Table 6: Cases With Arrears Due And Cases Paying Towards Arrears, FY 2008." This official federal government document indicates that over 62,000 South Carolinians are making no payments towards their child support arrears. Bad as this appears, it should be kept in mind that these figures only include active DSS cases and that they were compiled prior to the onset of the recession. Our guess is that there are currently another 20,000 to 30,000 non-custodial parents who are making no payments toward their child support arrears in South Carolina. And this does not include the private cases that are not handled by DSS.

Readers should keep in mind both that most custodial parents are women and that MANY SOUTH CAROLINA "DEADBEATS" ARE JUST "DEAD." So nobody may ever get money from some fathers. Additionally, as The Wall Street Journal reports, the recession may be hitting men harder than women. These combined facts should stimulate South Carolina to make more vigorous efforts to "get 'em while they're hot." The longer South Carolina waits to implement its computerized child support tracking and collection system and to require new hire reporting, the more difficulty it will have in collecting past due child support on behalf of some of its most needy and vulnerable citizens.

Labels: , , , , ,


Sunday, February 07, 2010

 
CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE CAMPBELL MAY HAVE MISSED CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS

Will Folks, former spokesman for South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, writes in "Campbell Child Support Questioned":
Anyway, giving [sic] that Campbell’s elevator has always stopped several floors short of the top, it wouldn’t surprise in the least to learn that he may have missed a child support payment here or there – as is being alleged by several sources close to the law firm where his former wife is employed.
From our perspective, the fact that Mr. Campbell may have gotten behind in his child support or may have missed a payment does not make him a "Deadbeat." As we have noted before, in these difficult economic times, many otherwise responsible folks are finding it difficult to meet their child support obligations. We would be concerned, however, if Mr. Campbell were to publicly demonstrate his ignorance of the Welfare Reform Act as did South Carolina Lt. Governor Andre Bauer. And, we would be more concerned if we were to learn that Mr. Campbell's businesses are not complying with the federal new hire reporting law and are helping 70,000 South Carolina "Deadbeats" avoid their responsibilities to their children.

Labels: , , , ,


Thursday, January 21, 2010

 
SOUTH CAROLINA MAY MAKE SOME REASONABLE COST- SAVING PRISON REFORMS

Although Laura Hudson, Executive Director of the South Carolina Victim's Council objects, it appears that South Carolina may decide to follow the example of Michigan rather than follow the example of Florida.

According to "Legislative report to call for changes":

A legislative committee will release a report by Feb. 1 that will call for changes in the punishments for dozens of crimes and will suggest using more alternative sentences for non-violent criminals.

The state's overcrowded prisons are a driving force behind the report, which is the result of more than a year of study by the S.C. Sentencing Reform Commission.

"I wouldn't say it's the number one reason, but it's an issue," said Sen. Gerald Malloy, D-Darlington, the commission chairman. "In order to continue on the path we're headed, we're going to have to build more prisons, and we don't have the funds to do that."

The commission hopes its recommendations ensure public safety by sending high-risk, violent offenders to jail for longer terms, Malloy said. At the same time, the state will need to reduce the prison time for other crimes.

The commission also will recommend that the state beef up its Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services to better supervise criminals once they are released from prison.

The commission will present draft legislation based on the report, Malloy said. The challenge will be finding money in a strapped state budget to implement some of the recommendations.

"The real answer to this is to build a new prison," said Laura Hudson, S.C. Crime Victims Council executive director.
Now, if the counties can just figure out which of those who are behind on their child support payments really deserve to be incarcerated for willful contempt. If they do that, maybe they will not have to either continue to increase the size of county jails or build new jails. Or, they will at least be able to determine whether the tax payers are benefiting from the incarceration of "Deadbeats."

Labels: , , ,


Wednesday, January 06, 2010

 
SOUTH CAROLINA AG'S OPINION ON "FAILURE TO SUPPORT" CRIMINAL STATUTE

The South Carolina Attorney General's Opinion on the "Failure to Support" Criminal Statute is a well-written, concise, and cogent document. Its existence raises two questions.

First, given South Carolina's abysmal child support collection rate and the AG's promise to pursue "Deadbeats," why is this statute not used more?

Second, with the availability of this statute, why is South Carolina's child support collection rate so abysmal?

Labels: ,


Monday, September 07, 2009

 
COLLECTING CHILD SUPPORT--"CAN'T WE DO BETTER?"

Recently incarcerated "Deadbeat Dad" Smoky Weiner writes, "I have a special place in my heart for inmates since I was in the 'Father Jail' for three days a few months back. Yes, the Charleston County Jail is where you go when you are $550 behind in child support. I met a guy in there who was only $179 behind."

He goes on to write:
In all, 23 out of the 70 guys were in there for nonpayment of child support. They kept us in one large room with two toilets. The whole jail population was about one-third fathers. I want to point this out because the county is building a new jail costing millions of dollars partly to house working fathers. These fathers are right now costing taxpayers instead of being one of them.Family Court judges are tossing people into prison as though it solves the problem. The fact is that times are worse for more people now. If you can't find a job or can't make enough money at your job to pay what the court orders, then jail is where you will wind up. Can't we do better?
Yes Smoky, we can do better. Whether we will is another question.

Labels: , ,


Wednesday, July 01, 2009

 
IS THE APPLICATION OF CIVIL CONTEMPT IN SOUTH CAROLINA'S SOUTH CAROLINA'S DADDY ROUND-UPS IMPROPER?"

Charleston County Attorney Gregory S. Forman, Esquire poses a provocative question on his Blog at Is the Application of civil contempt in South Carolina’s “daddy round-ups” improper?

Labels: , ,


Saturday, June 20, 2009

 
NBA STARS BATTLE THEIR "BABY MOMMAS"

The Philadelphia Inquirer has reported that “Sixers star Andre Iguodala is being sued for child support by a South Jersey woman.” The mother of the child is seeking temporary support of $12,000 to $15,000 a month. Mr. Iguodala’s attorneys have reportedly stated, "We have made all reasonable efforts . . . to resolve this matter without litigation. In spite of those efforts, the demands that were made were beyond what is reasonable." However, the paper provides no information on what Mr. Iguodala’s attorneys consider a "reasonable amount of support" to expect from a man who’s reported income is approximately $1,000,000 a month.

In a related story, The New York Times reports that Dallas Mavericks player Dirk Nowitzki “has filed court papers seeking sole custody of his former girlfriend's unborn child should genetic testing proves he's the father.” There is no word yet on how much Mr. Nowitski may be willing to pay for child support in the event that he proves to be the father and does not obtain custody. Nor is there any report on whether he is willing to pay maternity medical bills for his former fiancée. It is apparent, however, that this multimillionaire would rather let his child’s putative mother sit in jail than pay her dental bills.

Labels: ,


Friday, May 15, 2009

 
CHARLESTON COUNTY PLANS TO INCUR FURTHER DEBT TO HOUSE "DEADBEATS"

The Charleston Post and Courier reported today that Charleston County is ready to borrow $60M "to help finance the county's new prison and dispatching center, which could result in a small property tax increase." Once again, we suggest that there may be a better way.

Labels: , ,


Monday, May 04, 2009

 
WHY NOT A FUGITIVE SAFE SURRENDER PROGRAM FOR "DEADBEATS?"

The Federal Marshall's Safe Surrender Program is touted as a "unique, creative, and highly successful, initiative that encourages persons wanted for non-violent felony or misdemeanor crimes to voluntarily surrender to the law in a faith-based or other neutral setting...[which] offers individuals with felony and misdemeanor warrants the ability to turn themselves in to law enforcement and have their cases adjudicated in a safe and non-violent environment."

Last week, this program "resulted in more than 400 people turning themselves in at a Wilmington (Delaware) church in the first two days of the four-day effort to get wanted fugitives off the streets." And last July, this program was implemented in South Carolina.

This program appears to be very effective. Therefore, we would like to see similar programs implemented for "Deadbeat" parents so that they too can come out of hiding, "turn themselves in to law enforcement and have their cases adjudicated in a safe and non-violent environment." 70,000 parents in hiding and ever-increasing child support arrearages in South Carolina is testament to the fact that the system is "broken into pieces" and that new approaches have to be considered.

Labels: , , ,


Wednesday, April 29, 2009

 
LILLY COLLETTE'S COMMENTS TO "JEFFERSON COULD JOIN HIGH COURT"

Lilly Collette posted the following comment to Jefferson could join high court:
How many times does the family court have to be “reminded” of the Rules of Family Court before someone–puts their foot down—and does something about these mongrels?

http://www.sccourts.org/opinions/unpublishedopinions/HTMLFiles/COA/2009-UP-008.htm Fuller v. Fuller, App. Ct. 2009-UP-008[3] Although we have affirmed the appealed order based on our own findings from our review of the evidence, we take this opportunity to remind the family court bench that, under the South Carolina Rules of Family Court, “[a]n order or judgment pursuant to an adjudication in a domestic relations case shall set forth the specific findings of fact and conclusions of law to support the court’s decision.” Rule 26(a), SCRFC.
While we would not go so far as to refer to a judge as "a mongrel," this Opinion does give us pause. It is our understanding that Family Court Orders in South Carolina are usually prepared by the attorney for the "prevailing party" with input from the attorney for the other party. If the two attorneys involved in this case could not manage to craft an Order that both complied with the procedural rules and accurately reflected the facts presented at trial, what hope do so-called "Deadbeat Dads," who are often unrepresented by Counsel, have that their Orders will both comply with the procedural rules and accurately reflect the facts presented at trial? Therefore, shouldn't indigent "Deadbeat Dads" be provided with assigned counsel?

Labels: ,


Saturday, April 25, 2009

 
TEXT OF "A DEADBEAT DAD, SOUTH CAROLINA IS HIS BEST FRIEND"

The text of "A DEADBEAT DAD, SOUTH CAROLINA IS HIS BEST FRIEND" is as follows:
Single parenting is a strain in every direction. On a good day, you can fret about being ?untraditional? and worry whether your children?s lives might be better; on a bad day, you come face to face with the brutal economics of being both the provider and the nurturer, and you worry whether your children will eat tonight, or who will watch them when work requires you to stay late unexpectedly. It is a fundamental principle that parents who bring a child into this world are both responsible for providing that child's physical needs, regardless of any conflicts in their relationship. South Carolina dosen't seem to understand it takes a women and a man to have a child . One of the results of this lack of holding the fathers responsabale as much as the mother for the children they have .South Carolina has one of the highest teen birth rates in the nation. Each of these pregnancies --- among girls as young as 10 and 11 years-old --- create substantial social, health-related and economic consequences for the individuals involved, as well as for every taxpayer in South Carolina. Between 1995 and 2000, the state incurred nearly $51 million indirect costs due to teen pregnancies in the form of economic and housing assistance, foster care and juvenile justice issues In 2004 According to the South Carolina Commission for Minority Affairs' 2004 Statistical Profile, 31 percent of all children in South Carolina under the age of 18 live in single-parent families. Of all females in the state who give birth, 40.1 percent are single.

In 2006 South Carolina Kids Count Project Director Baron Holmes : Stated "In order for young children to reach their potential, their health, family, economics, and safety would have to improve by at least 20% on the Kids Count indicators." The required reduction to reach the national average would be: Single-Parent Families by 22%

In all of my reserch I have only found only one thing that turns the the tide of single parent births by this high of number. The paper is titled "The Impact of Child Support Enforcement Policy on Nonmarital Childbearing." The research was supported by the Center for Studies in Demography and Ecology at the University of Washington and a grant from the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Researchers studying the factors behind out-of-wedlock births have found a significant variable that often is overlooked: child support. States that are strict in enforcing child support have up to 20 percent fewer unmarried births than states that are lax about getting unmarried dads to pay, the researchers found.

PLEASE EMAIL THESE THREE STOGES AND TELL THEM TO WAKE UP AND SUPPORT THE CHILDREN OF SOUTH CAROLINA

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford http://www.scgovernor.com/Contact.asp?sitecontentid=33

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham http://lgraham.senate.gov/index.cfm?mode=contactform

South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint http://demint.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home

Labels: ,


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