It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Father sentenced to 6 months in jail for paying too much child support

page: 2
35
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 03:26 PM
link   

AK907ICECOLD
reply to post by LeatherNLace
 


She's a female.... not defending a male..... the outcome is not a surprise


Im surprised.


Im surprised you think all women are sexist.


Deny Ignorance at any point yano, it doesnt hurt.



+3 more 
posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by LeatherNLace
 


This story seems to be getting misrepresented a bit. Original source story states that the judge found Hall in contempt when he walked out of the court room. The maximum jail sentence for contempt of court in Texas is 6 months and may have a $500 fine so the judge basically hit him with a contempt of court for walking out of the proceedings (which is a no-no) and the $3000 in attorney fees that his ex-wife incurred.



Judge Millard tells Fox 26 after she found Hall in contempt he walked out of the courtroom which she says is a big no no.

www.myfoxhouston.com...

Also, there seems to be a few things lacking here. If Hall's visits with her son were "okay" with his wife, then why the court case at all? Obviously it wasn't okay. We don't know the back story of these two's marriages so it's hard to say whether she was taking him to court to just be vindictive or if she had good reason to want him to stick to the court ordered visitation. In either case, he didn't stick to it and that would be yet another contempt of court.

Every little change in a court order gets sent to both affected parties. I get notified if there is the smallest change to my child support order. Saying he was unaware doesn't fly because odds are, they were legally bound to notify him of those changes. Saying "I didn't know" doesn't fly because it's his responsibility to make sure he knows. It's like that saying about ignorance of the law.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by WhiteAlice
 


The only news source i can find is Foxnews - That doesnt surprise me.


Move along people, Only right wing nonsense in this thread.




posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   

WhiteAlice
This story seems to be getting misrepresented a bit.


it does appear that way...
www.snopes.com...


When Hall found out about the modified terms, in order to
avoid jail time he quickly paid nearly $3,000 in back child support (despite, he claims, having been told during a court appearance several weeks earlier that he was all paid up) and agreed to pay the child's mother $3,000 in attorney's fees (which she presumably incurred in bringing the issue of his non-compliance with the agreement to court).

So, based on Hall's side of the story, he was unaware that the amount of child support he was required to pay had been increased, he had recently been told in court that he didn't owe any back child support, and when he found out he did indeed owe outstanding child support he hastened to pay it in full. Nonetheless, Judge Lisa Millard found Hall in contempt of court and sentenced him to 180 days in county jail for some combination of his failure to pay required child support on time, his failure to follow the court's scheduled visitation times with his son, and/or his walking out of the courtroom in the middle of a hearing.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SearchLightsInc
 


Even the Fox news site still stated that Hall was found in contempt of court for walking out of the courtroom. Their biggest crime? Their title of the article misrepresenting what actually occurred--"Father pays outstanding child support--still gets jail time." I've noted that a lot of the more well known news agencies will do this and I suspect it is to garner hits to the article itself. It's a "made you look!" news title and it really is noxious.

All the other articles are the usual suspects that, at the least, took the title of the Fox article and ran with it in completely the wrong direction or, at the worst, deliberately misrepresented the situation in order to support their own personal ideology. When I say "usual suspects", those are sites that are prone to doing what I just stated (ie. examiner.com, policestateusa.com, and freepatriot.org) who have an overall ideology that they want to report ("everything within our government sucks") and the rest are sites that basically find a vested interest in that particular story. I think the biggest problem is that there are a lot of people flapping their jaws (or typing furiously away to put in their $.02 in this case) without actually reading the original Fox article or realizing that the title is a "gotcha! made you look" type of title.

It's like the telephone game. The more a story gets passed around and repeated, the more a story changes until it can virtually become unrecognizable beyond a few small details. It's not that hard to fact check a story and find the original source to make sure that it has not been telephone gamed. If more people took the time to do it, then maybe we wouldn't have so many problems with misinformation ruling the world.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 04:04 PM
link   
in this current system men are second class citizens,we have no rights....guilty until proven innocent.........the law is backward



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 04:23 PM
link   
If this man is jailed, where does an income to pay his child support come from. Seems the judge, regardless of contempt charges levelled at the man, will place him and the system in a difficult position if he is jailed for 6 months.

He will have no income to pay child support (may even lose his employment). The system is slow to make changes for the payee so I guess he will be in a world of hurt financially.

The child will suffer as usual.

Bally



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 04:43 PM
link   
This is another one that has me scratching my head. He made a good point. How is he going to be there for his son and pay child support in jail! The system is completely screwed up. I seriously do not want kids, it's way too complicated.

My cousin is still paying child support for his 23yo son who has a full-time job. According to child support laws in my state a child over 18 who is in high school, or attending college, the support continues. However, there is almost always a loophole. It also also states the it is to the courts discretion considering the child's living conditions with the parent awarded prior custody. So basically, if the parent you still live with is a complete bum you're all set, even at 23...33.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 05:03 PM
link   
It sounds to me like the Judge gave Hall time for contempt - I did read something about him walking out of court perhaps prematurely. I have nothing to add that hasn't been said. This is a sad precedent and that man deserves public support and is apparently getting some help via web donations.

Instead of praising this father for doing whatever he could to help raise his child she feels the need to punish him for not following court decorum to a "T". The Wicked witch of the West is longer missing a sister, we found her.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by SearchLightsInc
 


No, I don't.. You can insert your foot here
. you do realize how ignorant your comment is don't you (yano)
You might as well tell me I'm a racist, mormon, etc,....

one of my high school GF's mom was a very well off woman and had friends of high status.

I was doing yard work at her house while I was in high school, once while her and a group of woman sitting in the hot tub smoking (insert imagination) and joined them.

I had to go to Palmer court for a reckless speeding ticket and surprise, surprise! the judge was a woman at that "party".

I approached the bench and mention that I was the boy at "no name's" house. And reminded her of the hot tub scene.. I will never forget her facial expression.

She dismissed me, confusion set in the room. I was let go with no process
So.. no... Call BS, but its something in my life I will never forget... Men can do it to.

Sorry, but I love the ladies, fat, mean, ugly, whatever....they sometimes forget their place and need to be taught a lesson, but that's life..

Just to make your day, I AM a sexist pig, and enjoy it greatly, thx

Did I hurt your feelings?
edit on 11-1-2014 by AK907ICECOLD because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-1-2014 by AK907ICECOLD because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 05:22 PM
link   

AK907ICECOLD
reply to post by SearchLightsInc
 


No, I don't.. You can insert your foot here
. you do realize how ignorant your comment is don't you (yano)
You might as well tell me I'm a racist, mormon, etc,....

one of my high school GF's mom was a very well off woman and had friends of high status.

I was doing yard work at her house while I was in high school, once while her and a group of woman sitting in the hot tub smoking (insert imagination) and joined them.

I had to go to Palmer court for a reckless speeding ticket and surprise, surprise! the judge was a woman at that "party".

I approached the bench and mention that I was the boy at "no name's" house. And reminded her of the hot tub scene.. I will never forget her facial expression.

She dismissed me, confusion set in the room. I was let go with no process
So.. no... Call BS, but its something in my life I will never forget... Men can do it to.

Sorry, but I love the ladies, fat, mean, ugly, whatever....they sometimes forget their place and need to be taught a lesson, but that's life..

Just to make your day, I AM a sexist pig, and enjoy it greatly, thx

Did I hurt your feelings?
edit on 11-1-2014 by AK907ICECOLD because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-1-2014 by AK907ICECOLD because: (no reason given)



Hurt my feelings?

No lovely, what hurts is when you make daft ignorant statements like "well its a female judge she isnt going to go lightly when its a man in the dock" then you reply to me yelling about how much you like women, youve made me laugh more than anything - obviously you dont know where you stand on the female sex - confused much? /laughing smiley



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by WhiteAlice
 


Misleading much? This story does indeed smell fishy, thank you, white Alice and bruce for your contributions.

Dig, people.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 07:42 PM
link   
The judge is up for reelection. She has made some other fairly controversial rulings, generally just before she has to run for a different judgeship, and she rarely wins by more than 3 or 4 percentage points.

A bit of Facebook work and you could likely sway this. It's also not going to help her with it being in the news, I suspect.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 07:47 PM
link   
I sense there is more to this story than the headlines says.

" seeing his child too much" might mean he was stopping by unannounced.
As for owing too much. Not sure what that could be, except his wife wanted the 5000 in legal fees paid to her. That must be why he was in court. Then he walked out of court instead of staying to plead his side of the story, the judge said she would have taken into consideration.

"Modifications he didn't know about". Could that be he gets mail or is served papers and neglects to read them or can't read? Not paying attention to details. Some guys just cant be bothered to read things.

Either way it's very unfortunate the child misses out on seeing his father because he's been jailed
edit on 11-1-2014 by violet because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 09:15 PM
link   

WhiteAlice
Even the Fox news site still stated that Hall was found in contempt of court for walking out of the courtroom. Their biggest crime? Their title of the article misrepresenting what actually occurred



Like I've said before:
a reminder that any headline with the word "for" in it is usually a lie.
eg. "man arrested for..."
"woman killed for..."
"student fined for..."
etc


But ATS readers usually fall for it anyway.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 12:42 AM
link   
Contempt of court is the most disgusting, tyrannical, nonsensical charge in criminal law. It is primarily used against poor people who don't pay some arbitrary fine in time/in full for some arbitrary victimless "crime" (I.e. traffic citations), and for whatever random BS a judge feels like- this is EXACTLY what the "mad kings" were notorious for in medieval Europe.

The judicial branch is nothing more than the VIOLENT ENFORCEMENT THUGS for the criminal gang we call the State.
RESPECT MY AUTHORITEHHHH OR ELSE!
This is Rome people.
But FAR FAR worse.

And I'm not the doom and gloom fear-mongering type...I'm a realist.
But this, my friends, is the reality.
And I don't know what, if anything, anyone can do to stop history from repeating itself now.

What has always been so obvious to some, seems to have been- and continues to be- lost on the majority of people:
the decent, well-adjusted, empathetic, people of the world;
the kind of people we want in positions of power,

are NOT THE KIND OF PEOPLE THAT ACTUALLY SEEK AND TAKE POSITIONS OF POWER.

It is a logical imperative.

edit on 12-1-2014 by ltinycdancerg because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-1-2014 by ltinycdancerg because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 05:08 AM
link   
reply to post by SearchLightsInc
 


Yes, of course I can be..

No worries though! I got a laugh as well from you. I love and hate them at the same time.....

Again for the 1,000th time: A divine dichotomy



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 04:32 PM
link   
It just they want people to conform to their laws. It's just mind boggling the stupidity of the system sometimes.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by LeatherNLace
 


Its disappointing the number of people who seem to assume this story is actually true. If a story makes no sense whatsoever, then its probably not true. Thats a good rule of thumb. Outrageous claims require a higher level of evidence for an outrage.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 07:44 PM
link   

alfa1

WhiteAlice
Even the Fox news site still stated that Hall was found in contempt of court for walking out of the courtroom. Their biggest crime? Their title of the article misrepresenting what actually occurred



Like I've said before:
a reminder that any headline with the word "for" in it is usually a lie.
eg. "man arrested for..."
"woman killed for..."
"student fined for..."
etc


But ATS readers usually fall for it anyway.



THANK YOU.

The 'for' headlines are almost always BS and set up to get people into a furor without reading.

I had the same thought when I saw this headline on another site.

It is NOT ok to walk out of court. Blaming the judge here is preposterous. The only person to blame for this is the idiot who walked out (and perhaps his lawyer).

Not to say I haven't on numerous occasions either glossed over an important detail or completely misinterpreted something, but the immediate vitriol that gets spewed before all the facts are presented (or read) is out of hand. Take a minute and a breath, read the article. If it sounds unbelievable perhaps it is. Or perhaps the author is attempting to dupe you and get you mad for clicks.



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join