Does the 13th amendment make forced Child support illegal?

Section 1 of the Thirteenth Amendment:

“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

If one is ordered to pay child support and has no job then they WILL be incarcerated once the amount owed reaches a certain amount.

I have two children and DO Pay my child support (of my own free will) and would never dream of NOT paying it. I was just wondering if this could be interpreted to make forced Child support unconstitutional?

I don't know. There need to be some serious laws revisited on this matter. I find it unfair for a parent to to pay child support and help support the new partner. I have meet people that use and abuse this set up and it is usually the father who has to pay for it. If a man wants to be with a woman with kids , he is accepting some form of parental responsibility. care, bills, ect. Child support should stop there . In most cases I am sure most fathers will still help provide and support their child . It is kinda of a b.s. system for those who have no ethic and don't care for their offspring . I know some guys that pay around 1,0000 a month and I do not understand how 2 children need all that money for support. The mother works the new boy live in boy friend works.

reply to post by Adamanteus


Ah,I feel your pain. I payed child support also for years. I believe anytime someone is "forced" to do something,contrary to his/hers personal wishes is wrong. Little story. I payed child support for three kids,2 different mothers. Not only did I pay for the support,that didnt go to my children,I payed for fees to process the paperwork,and fees that wernt stipulated under child support,like clothing,medical,food,etc.... all the things a normal father who loves his kids would do,regardless if someone is telling you ,you need to do this,and its the law. Child Support is a billion dollar industry. If you pay your support,it most likely takes two weeks before that actual money is even sent to the mother/father. Meaning,it sits in the agency's account collecting interest. Think of how much money is collected in that way. The laws are different,from state to state,country to country. My suggestion is to join a fathers advocacy group.
Groups

By the way,Fathers are being looked at with kinder eyes,by judges nowadays.
Happy ending to my story,I fought both ex's to get all my kids.Not only was my chances 1 in 20k to get one child,I fought for all three. Guess what,I dont receive ANY child support from the mothers,nor do I want any. I dont want or need the system in my life.

I am in favor of a forced sterilization of the entire population, then two people can petition to breed. the caveats being they willingly will pay a certain sum of money until the child turns 18 years of age regardless of situation...then they get the counter so they can breed.

Meh, there is a reason I am not a politician..practical (and somewhat iron fisted) views on responsibility.

You could actually loosely support an argument that breeding is a crime and the punishment is support or imprisonment...support by being with the mother, or forced child support...failing those two, you go get locked up, so I guess my idea isn't that radical after all.

reply to post by sonnny1


There is no "pain" involved. My ex never took me to court and forced me to pay. We agreed on a base amount that we both felt comfortable with me paying and if I have extra and she needs it I give her more and if "times are tough" then she cuts me some slack. I also get my children every day after school and if they don't have something planned with their friends on Saturdays also. (she has off Sunday so they spend the day with her)

I actually have a very good Ex and sometimes wonder why she is my Ex.

This post was mainly because I was researching the validity of the income tax and thought "hey that may be construed as forced child support is unconstitutional"

dude i feel your pain!!!!!, i have to pay 300 a month for one kid, i have custody of 3 kids which i have raised since birth , plus i got with a girl that has 5 kids, and we get no child support at all for the 8 kids we have in total!!!! but i still get slammed with that 300 a month life is not fair, and the mom that i pay to uses the money on twinkies and beer.

Originally posted by Adamanteus
Section 1 of the Thirteenth Amendment:

“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

No, child support is either a mutually agreed to "contract" between the two parties or a court ordered "judgment for support". In both cases they are legally binding and therefore enforceable - to willfully refuse to pay a judgment is a crime in most places and of course a contract is subject to remedy.

Likely most states now have some sort of law or statute regarding the non-payment of child support making it a crime to fail to pay the court ordered or mutually agreed upon amount without cause.

In almost all cases if your financial situation changes either party can petition the court for a change in the amount to be paid.

In the case of an increase of pay in the custodial parent can be the petitioner.
In the case of a decrease it will be the non-custodial parent who petitions.

I would say in the case of losing one's job the burden of proof would be on the petitioner to prove that he/she needs a decrease in the amount required and in the case of chronic unemployment to prove his/her due diligence in obtaining suitable work. In almost no instance will – “I can’t find work suffice”.

You will be directed to the unemployment office and if eligible pay from those benefits or your case worker will have to testify that you are ineligible for the benefit. You will have to do something – the judgment will not just go away.

In no case is one simply allowed to decrease/increase the amount paid unilaterally without a judgment; it is either through mutual consent or by court order.

In all cases it is in one's best interest to file the request for reduction due to financial hardship before you get into arrears enough to have the bench warrant issued.

Initially this will be hard; just send a certified letter to the other party indicating what the situation is and that you need to renegotiate the amount - showing good faith (sending something – as proportionate to your current income as the old order was is best) to execute the order in some way will keep you out of jail in almost any case. In jail you can’t pay anything it is not in the interest of the child or the state to put you there.

Originally posted by AdamanteusI was just wondering if this could be interpreted to make forced Child support unconstitutional?

No, one has a responsibility as the parent to provide support to his/her offspring; one will, regardless of income be required to pay something towards the maintenance of your children unless the custodial spouse makes a considerable amount more - or you are disabled and cannot work etc.

Even in the case of disability one would have to apply (court ordered) for SSI and pay a portion of that for
support.

reply to post by Adamanteus


Nice to hear you have a great relationship with the ex. I did find this on a advocacy site.
Georgia judge declares child support guidelines unconstitutional
....Given the very nature and purpose of the Guidelines, this Court finds that there is an overriding governmental pecuniary purpose involved. D.H.R. v. Ofutt, 217 Ga. App. 823 at 825 (1995).

This Court finds that the Guidelines were hastily enacted and left unchanged without sufficient examination of relevant economic data and for those reasons as well as the gross deviation from all child cost studies as noted previously, finds them to be arbitrary and capricious. See, Sierra Club v. Martin, 168 F. 3d 1 (11th Cir., 1999).

With all due respect to the members of the Governor's Commissions on Child Support (hereinafter, the "Commission") in both 1998 and 2001, it is clear that only one member in 1998, Mr. Mark Rogers, and none in 2001 were properly qualified by education, background and experience to accurately assess the economic and financial intricacies of the Guidelines. This, too, the Court finds to be indicative of arbitrary state action.

....This Court finds that this constitutes further proof of arbitrariness on the part of the State and, if left in place, may rise to a volitional violation of the constitutional protections afforded the citizens of this State.



Maybe this will point you in the right direction. Good luck.

Originally posted by Adamanteus
If one is ordered to pay child support and has no job then they WILL be incarcerated once the amount owed reaches a certain amount.

No, they will not.

All courts apply "means testing," which sets your obligation based upon what you are, or should be, earning. Willful un-employment or underemployment may be prosecutable, but all criminal prosecutions (e.g., criminal non-support) require a showing of criminal intent and responsibility.

You may be held in jail for "contempt" of a court order that previously found you capable of paying, but all such claims are subject to rebuttal.

There is no "automatic" jail for non-support.

Any man who fathers a child assumes a life-long obligation, outside of the courts, to support, educate and discipline that child.

I am a divorced father; and I gladly accept as much of this responsibility as I can take from the ignorant bitch who gave birth to our children.

The "presumptions" once accepted in favor of the female are dropping by the wayside. If you do not want financial obligations (at the barest of minimums) for your offspring, do not have offspring. Otherwise, be a man and face your paternal responsibilities.

... just wondering if this could make forced child support unconstitutional.

Why would any real man be "forced" to pay for support that he is unable or unwilling to provide. Most states' divorce decrees allow for "agreed support" in lieu of state-monitored support payments.

I paid well over what my state obligations would've been until my children were into or through college.
If I chose not to, the state would've set a minimum based upon my earnings history and ability.

So what?

The Uniform Interstate Family Support Act provides due process and administrative oversight of ALL members' Orders. A custodial parent who is not paid or entitled to support did not go through the courts or has an Order that is unenforceable in most states.

man up

deny ignorance

jw

Originally posted by AdamanteusI was just wondering if this could be interpreted to make forced Child support unconstitutional?

No, one has a responsibility as the parent to provide support to his/her offspring; one will, regardless of income be required to pay something towards the maintenance of your children unless the custodial spouse makes a considerable amount more - or you are disabled and cannot work etc.

Even in the case of disability one would have to apply (court ordered) for SSI and pay a portion of that for
support.

Who says that "one has a responsibility as the parent to provide support to his/her offspring;" Nature? GOD? The Constitution? The legalities are what I am questioning. I personally have a Moral obligation, but we all know that 'morals" differ from person to person. If one has decided to be a bum throughout life and never work then forcing them to get a job that they otherwise would not be willing to get could be considered "indentured servitude" could it not?

Originally posted by jdub297


I paid well over what my state obligations would've been until my children were into or through college.
If I chose not to, the state would've set a minimum based upon my earnings history and ability.


man up

deny ignorance

jw

Star for you Jdub.

I also agree. If you have children,its your right,not a laws right to take care of the kids YOU have. Are some of the laws unbalanced? You bet. Do fathers get the short end of the stick? Statistically speaking,yes. Unconstitutional? Supreme Court doesnt see it that way. Its the States that have it all mucked up. It must be fixed at the state level. I do know people in Jail,for failure to pay child support.

Originally posted by freedomSlaveI don't know. There need to be some serious laws revisited on this matter. I find it unfair for a parent to to pay child support and help support the new partner.

This happens a lot but all states are different some allow for the inclusion of either some of, a portion of or all of, the new partners income to be considered in the adjudication of the support order.

Originally posted by freedomSlaveI have meet people that use and abuse this set up and it is usually the father who has to pay for it. If a man wants to be with a woman with kids , he is accepting some form of parental responsibility. care, bills, ect. Child support should stop there . In most cases I am sure most fathers will still help provide and support their child . It is kinda of a b.s. system for those who have no ethic and don't care for their offspring . I know some guys that pay around 1,0000 a month and I do not understand how 2 children need all that money for support. The mother works the new boy live in boy friend works.

This is where professional help comes in; if you as the non-custodial parent believe that the “live-in” partner and your ex are cohabitating as if they were married (some states have laws about common law and others have different rules like shared bank accounts, utilities etc.) but are not getting married to exploit the system you can petition for the court to consider them as a married couple.

You need a PI to get photos and keep logs and stuff but it can be done – plus the kids will testify how many nights uncle Robby sleeps over and whether he has a house or apartment of his own etc…

In a case like this you can actually petition to gain custody yourself and will likely win as fraud is a reason to reassess custody.

This happens a lot with military retirement – after a divorce a spouse gets a percentage unless she remarries.

Chicks think they are slick and cohabitate with a partner instead – I made a little bit of side business in Fayetteville doing a few surveillance jobs for cases just like that.

Guys were getting screwed out of their retirements in the first place then their wife was living with another guy in lieu of marriage.

Luckily, NC has a common law clause and a lot of these ladies had to pay back large amounts of cash (and I got 35.00 an hour for watching a house and taking some photos) and justly so - chicks!

Men cannot "choose to create offspring."

They can have unprotected sex ten times a day and never end up with a baby.

Only the unilateral choice of a female can create a baby that requires 20 years of support.

Being forced to pay for the results of another person's unilateral choices is a form of slavery.

I don't mind paying child support. But the system is unfair. I personally have to pay 25%, keep insurance on the kids, and still maintain the same things she does such as housing, transportation, clothing etc for the kids. The only good thing about this is that I am blessed. We have never gone by the standard visitation rights where the non-custodial sees his/her kids every other week and couple hours during the week. I get my kids about 3 or 4 days a week. Spending quality time with them is more important than the money I pay.

Also, I don't think child support will change anytime soon. A politician once told me there are more women voters than men and most women are the ones receiving child support. Never looked up to see if this was a true statement but it makes sense from a politicians standpoint..

I guess the biggest question I have about child support is how much does it really cost to raise a kid per year?

Anyway, I don't think the 13th amendment applies to this situation.

Originally posted by SevenBeans
Men cannot "choose to create offspring."

They can have unprotected sex ten times a day and never end up with a baby.

Only the unilateral choice of a female can create a baby that requires 20 years of support.

Being forced to pay for the results of another person's unilateral choices is a form of slavery.

edit on 29-1-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)

I somewhat agree.
GF: I'm pregnant
Me: I thought you were on "the pill"?
GF: i quit taking those back in June
Me:Thanks for telling me!
GF: I don't have to tell you everything!!
Me: You gonna get an abortion?
GF: * punches me in the face*
Me: I'll take that as a NO!

But I love my children and do anything and everything I can to support them but technically I was Forced into a situation by the use of deceit.

Originally posted by AdamanteusIf one has decided to be a bum throughout life and never work then forcing them to get a job that they otherwise would not be willing to get could be considered "indentured servitude" could it not?

No, there are statutes in every state that require parents to support their children until they reach the age of majority (18) or are emancipated either medically - usually pregnancy or emancipated financially like the child stars etc. Failure to do so in many states is child negelct and/or abandonment and you will go to jail for that one....

It is not something the Federal Government is involved in.

And, no once your name goes on the birth certificate you no longer have the right to chose to be a "bum" you would have to prove inability to work for some physical or psychological reason; rather than a desire not to.

I have been out of work for 1 yr now and still manage to pay support. I really don't think that is a valid excuse at all. But I do think that the custodial parent weather it be male or female be subject to keep records of expenses paid with that support and should be randomly checked in upon to make sure the kids are actually getting the support, as in a quality living quarters, food, heat. Because the way it is right now is not fair to all parties, especially in a lot of circumstances the children that the support is being paid for. Deadbeat parents should be in jail in my opinion.

I remembered in court,one time a certain gentleman that had 30k in back child support. His refusal to pay said child support was due to a Judge,at an initial hearing,granting the woman 1000 a month in pay,based on what she said he made,and no documented proof,on what the father was making. Both him and the woman were not married,so the only thing that was at stake,was child support.His failure to be in court initially,was because his mail,was still going to the house,he resided in,when he was with the women.He was paying her 300 hundred a month for his 1 child,even though the courts implicated he had to pay 1000 a month. Even with said documents,on what he actually was making,the Judge decided to keep the arrears imposed. His 300 a month,WAS what he should have payed,and WAS what he was paying,from the first week he left the residence.He threw the book at the man,and basically called him a deadbeat father,even though he payed 300 a month,had all the benefits for mother and child payed,and saw the child weekly. That is an injustice,and akin to slavery,and it happens everyday.

reply to post by sonnny1


I agree. I have a friend who was working in Louisianna ( He lives in Florida). He and his Wife split up and she got the house. Well she got with some other guy (who was a drug addict) so he came back and moved into the house they shared while together to make sure the bills were staying paid and to monitor how safe his kids were., he took a major pay cut in the process and could no longer make the payments he was ordered to make. The judge basically told him to take his @ss back to Louisianna if he was unable to pay. This is a travesty of Justice when the Judge deems that money is more important than a child spending time with their Parent.

reply to post by Adamanteus


There lies the problem.Judge wakes up in a bad mood,and takes it out on the people hes judging. I remember asking a Judge,what my childrens names were,and I was told I was close to being in contempt of court. He couldnt name my kids,BTW..... My attorney gave me that look of"shut up". Heres a man,that viewed everyone as a number,and treated them like one. He probably saw 30 -50 people in one day. If you are going to pass Judgments on children,adults,livelihoods,you have to be fair. Not every Judge is,Hence all the fathers advocacy groups out there. I feel bad for fellow fathers in Britain. America is bad,but Britain is far worse. Children should be protected,not harmed,when it comes to support,and the welfare of these children.