INCARCERATION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT IS INAPPROPRIATE

The demonization of noncustodial parents is used to justify all manner of inhumane treatment for those who owe child support. Sylvia Folk, a noncustodial mother, testified before Congress that she was incarcerated for seventy-two days for nonpayment. The judge candidly acknowledged his awareness that she lacked the money to pay but vowed to, and did, hold her until the ransom was paid by her church. As cruel as it sounds, the one remedy that almost always works is incarceration. Family court judges call it "the magic fountain."... For a destitute person, civil contempt is an inappropriate remedy to secure payment of a child support obligation: the party cannot be coerced into paying child support that instant, because she has no funds to pay it. Under such circumstances, incarcerating the appellant, and other destitute child support debtors similarly situated, serves no purpose at all. Tennessee's Court of Appeals lags behind the courts of our neighboring states in recognizing this fact.

The civil contempt in so many words should not have been a valid reason to hold that person incarcerated for 1 day or 1 year... When does the non-custodial parent have rights if they can not pay child support? Over and over Child support courts violate parents rights claiming that they are doing it for the protection of the child, what happens if the womans family or church could not have raised the money? After 1 year do they release her? Five years or 10. Those courts should be liable for violating that person civil rights!

Fugitive caught because he paid child support

Police arrested a fugitive wanted for selling drugs in Hoboken ... after they found him through child support payments.
Johnny Aviles failed to show up for his sentencing in 1995 after he was arrested for selling drugs in Hoboken. Aviles' arrest came as the result of an undercover drug sting in a Hoboken public housing complex; he was later indicted on charges of aggravated assault, resisting arrest, escape and various other drug charges.
Aviles remained a fugitive for the next 13 years, until police found him yesterday in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. Investigators had tracked him down through child support payments he had made to a woman in Hudson County.

Sperm donors required to pay child support?

Just saw a little feature on this topic on Good Morning America, but a quick trip around google shows this isn't breaking news. Matter of fact last year in Pennsylvania a court ordered a man to pay child support to the lesbian couple that used his sperm after, get this, the couple broke up and one of the women needed help to pay her own court-ordered child support. And in this case from last year a man who had a relationship of a "patriarchal nature" with the child, was forced to pay child support conveniently around the time the child was set to enter college. I'll have to google around and see if, in the same spirit, women now have to have the father's approval before having an abortion.Moreover, the Good Morning America report said this is holding true even for anonymous donors, in cases where the mother needs help paying her own or her child's medical bills or, for the time being, other extenuating circumstances. So a woman can decide to impregnate herself and can then proceed to shakedown a stranger for money? As if being a husband and/or a father weren't a dangerous and financially risky enough proposition nowadays.

So is this the nature of how men will be treated? No respect?

What do you think should be the minimum payment ?

What do you think should be the minimum payment for child support by fathers? If the child does not live with both parents should clothes be at the separate homes. What advice would you give to fathers in regards to the upbringing of their kids in terms of financial, moral and emotional support?


Yolanda: “It should be $100 per week for a child. Sometimes children do have clothes at the other home depending on the type of father. Fathers must look after their children especially if they know they are theirs. They must rally behind their children 100 per cent because the children are their future.”



Anonymous: “I would say $100…Is reasonable. I shall talk for myself because some might not agree. I have a two-year-old son and I give him anything once his mother calls and asks. I never believe that a man should have to end up in courts for child support. If you didn’t want a child, you would not have gone there in the first place. Clothes should be shared at both homes. As a father, play the father’s role and be there at all times. Fathers, they are your children don’t let them go astray and go in gangs.”


Speechless: “I believe about $300. With the rising cost of living, $100 can’t do anything for anybody. Children should have clothes by both parents. Fathers must be aware of the essence of parental care in terms of discipline and financial support. Parental care could be categorised under financial arrangement. Love for your kids is very important too.”


Perry: “I have a daughter, she is one year, seven months, three weeks and six days. I believe there shouldn’t be a minimum, once you have it, give it. Fathers, whatever is yours belongs to your child as well. Yes, I believe that the clothes should be shared. Any shopping for the youth, both mother and father must deal with that responsibility collectively. Make time to see your youth as much as possible, no matter what’s on the agenda, always be there for them. Do not neglect a child because a child feels more of the love when both mother and father are around.”


Zardara Powell: “It should be $200 or at least $150 per week. What can $80 do and life is so hard? Yes, children who live with their moms should have clothes at their father’s place. I would tell the fathers to support their child/ren always”.

The point I think that these people are missing is not how much it cost to raise the child, but how much can the father pay and still support himself...

NEW CHILD SUPPORT LIMITS AS OF JULY 1, 2008

Nevada law places presumptive maximums on the amount of child support a person is obligated to pay. A parent must pay 18% of his/her income for one child and 25% for two children. The amount a person pays, however, is subject to a cap based on the income range the paying parent falls in. In other words, if the applicable percentage of the paying parent's income is more than the cap amount, the paying parent will only be responsible for paying the cap amount. The presumptive cap amounts increased on July 1, 2008. To view the cap amounts click here.

Presumptive Maximum Amounts of Child Support
2008 Schedule
NRS 125B.070
Presumptive Maximum Amounts Increased 4.1% Pursuant to the Consumer Price Index (All Items) Increase in Calendar Year 2007 (December - December) as Published by the U.S. Department of Labor. If you have any questions, please contact Deanna Bjork, Manager of Budgets, (775) 684-1708. (Historical Maximum Amounts (pdf))

PRESUMPTIVE MAXIMUM AMOUNTS OF CHILD SUPPORT (NRS 125B.070)
EFFECTIVE JULY 1,2008 THROUGH JUNE 30,2009 ** REVISED MARCH 20,2008 **
Income Range Presumptive Maximum Amount
If the Parent's Gross Monthly Income is at Least But Less Than The Presumptive Maximum Amount the Parent May be Required to Pay per Month per Child Pursuant to

Paragraph (b) Subsection 1 is
$0 $4,235 $604
$4,235 $6,351 $664
$6,351 $8,467 $726
$8,467 $10,585 $785
$10,585 $12,701 $846
$12,701 $14,816 $906
$14,816 No Limit $968

Note: Issued by the Administrative Office of the Courts April 1 of each year in accordance with the provisions of NRS 125B.070 (3)

Establishing Paternity

The reason that I decided to write about this issue is because of the surge of men paying for children that actually are not their biological children. Surely this could'nt be true, right? The reality is all a woman has to do to establish paternity is to say that the baby is mine. This is were men get the shaft, if the man never receive information that he has to appear in court. Then the court automatically assumes that the man is the father. Of course it just that simple for a woman to go to court and make a claim and establish paternity. Now lets look at the flip side, they start garnishing the guys check talking about child support. He is livid and marches down to Department of Human Services (DHS) asking why is my check being garnished. They politely explain that paternity has been established and he is the father of a boy or girl. Now hold on to your seats and enjoy the ride. The accused is not afforded the opportunity to dispute such a claim without first appearing in court. Even after he makes a claim he then has to pay for a DNA test to prove the child is not his! (Please remember that he is still paying child support)... So the test comes back and proves he is not the father. Now he has to go back to court and show the proof to stop the garnishment. So after the court agree that the child is not mine, I have to wait for the court order to cease garnishing my check... This is the ugly part, all money that is paid to the mother who made the claim she gets to keep! This is food for the thought, you as an accused parent have a window of time to dispute a child being yours, if you don't then you are stuck paying support for the next 18 years...

When is contempt, contempt

Contempt is an act of deliberate disobedience or disregard for the laws, regulations, or decorum of a public authority, such as a court or legislative body. Individuals may be cited for contempt when they disobey an order, fail to comply with a request, tamper with documents, withhold evidence, interrupt proceedings through their actions or words, or otherwise defy a public authority or hold it up to ridicule and disrespect. The laws and rules governing contempt have developed in a piecemeal fashion over time and give wide discretion to judges and legislative leaders in determining both what constitutes contempt and how it is punished.

Contempt of court is a charge which can be laid against someone for interrupting the process of justice in a court of law. A charge of contempt, if proved, can result in fines and jail time. Many people are familiar with the concept of contempt of court, since it tends to come up in courtroom dramas.
There are several different forms of contempt of court. In all cases, they are rooted in the idea that a courtroom and its officers demand respect, both out of common decency and because a court acts as a legal authority. Failure to respect the court can compromise the course of justice, potentially causing a mistrial or compromising the integrity of a trial. As a result, contempt is treated very seriously.

Civil contempt of court involves a failure to obey an order from a court. It can be purged by obeying the order. For example, someone may speak out of turn in a courtroom during trial proceedings, disrespecting the basic rules of the courtroom. The judge can indicate that he or she will find the speaker in contempt of court unless the speaker sits down and remains silent until it is appropriate to talk. Or a witness could fail to answer a question, in which case the judge will instruct him or her to answer or be held in contempt of court.

Criminal contempt of court actually hinders the operations of the court. Examples of criminal contempt include a failure to produce evidence when subpoenaed, or threats to the judge, jury, or lawyers. Someone who yells at the judge, for example, could find him or herself accused of contempt of court.
Contempt of court is also broken up into direct contempt, which takes place in front of a judge, and indirect contempt. In order to prove a charge of contempt of court, it must be proved that the contemnor was aware of the court order or rule which was violated, that he or she was able to comply with the order, and that the contemnor failed to do so. If proved, the sentence for contempt varies, depending on the severity of the crime.

So the point I am making here is, at any given time when a women gets ready and decides not to let a child see his or her father, that is contempt. So when a man does not pay his child support he is held in contempt and threaten with jail time... I don't think that it is fair that a women gets off with a speech about ethics and she know its not right. Then a man will have to go to jail for an infraction of the law...

The Fourteenth Amendment says no man or woman shall be deprive of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So when a woman gets a slap on the hand and the man has to go to jail, isn't that a violation of the fourteenth amendment? You see green is green no matter what shade it is, and contempt is contempt no matter how minor it is... So shall it result in fines and jail time for not only the child support payers but the child visitation deniers!

So speak the words of truth, so that all can witness by...

Britney to pay Kevin $20,000 a month child support

Kevin Federline will receive $20,000 a month from ex-wife Britney Spears for looking after their two children. Federline won sole custody of the children, Sean Preston and Jayden James this past week.Britney was granted two visits and one overnight stay each week, and she may also be granted an additional overnight stay by the end of the year.

Did any one know she was raking it in like that? I mean thats Puff Daddy Child support payments...

Should incarcerated men have to Pay Child Support from Jail?

Here's another idiotic aspect of the child support system--demanding that incarcerated obligors continue to make child support payments even though we know they have no income and no ability to pay. Then, when they're released, they're several thousand dollars behind on child support (with interest on overdue payments added), and are subject to arrest or driven underground.This problem has now been recognized by the Justice Department and Hillary Clinton actually addressed it during her campaign but the issue is that regardless of the fact the man is incarcerated for one crime and literally being punished because he can not pay child support. Usually the above scenario applies to low-income minority men incarcerated as part of the asinine War on Drugs. In the case below, the charges are far more serious--murder. Nonetheless, it is still stupid and unfair to continue the man's child support obligation. If he's convicted, he'll be in jail the rest of his life, so the obligation is irrelevant--it'll never be paid. If he's acquitted, then he'll be behind on child support when he's released, with all the concomitant problems, even though he is legally blameless. So the minute that the man or woman is incarcerated the debt should either be picked up by the state or waived. To expect a man that has been incarcerated for 3 or more years to immediately start paying on a debt that has been accumulating over years is not fair to the man woman or child... Something has to be done with the inmate in mind, or he will always be caught in the system.

Woman Faces Charges for Failing to Pay Child Support

This week, a New Hampshire woman was sentenced to a charge for felony non-support. Samantha Bilodeau, of Manchester, admitted in court that she owed nearly $19,000 in unpaid child support and was sentenced to two to four years in prison. The sentence has been suspended for five years, excluding just over 200 days of time served. Bilodeau will serve five years of probation under the supervision of child support services.
Bilodeau’s arrest is one of many new cases of wives failing to pay child support to their former husbands.

The Michigan Child Support Formula

This is a complex formula. Among other factors, it takes into account:
The incomes of both parents
The number of children living with each parent
The number of tax exemptions each parent claims
Day care expenses
Health insurance premiums
In a traditional arrangement, the children live with one parent and visit with the other according to a schedule. The non-custodial parent pays child support.
The payer's support obligation can be much lower under the shared economic resources formula. That applies if the children spend at least 128 overnights per year with the payer of support.
This is only the tip of the iceberg. There are many rules and regulations that can affect the amount of child support. For example, if one parent is unemployed, then a level of income can be imputed to them based on their training, recent job experience, whether they quit or got fired, etc.

Health Insurance
Normally, both parents are required to provide health insurance for the children if it is available at a reasonable cost as a benefit of employment.
Both parents are often required to contribute to the cost of insuring the children, and uninsured health-care costs, according to their relative incomes.

Child Care (Day Care)
Both parents are often required to contribute to child care costs, again according to their relative incomes.

Life Insurance
Often, one or both parents agree to maintain a life insurance policy for the children until they turn 18. Michigan law does not require such a policy, but it can be a good idea to demand (or bargain for) it during a divorce, custody, support or paternity case. If the other parent dies before your children turn 18, this could help you support them.
This web site is only for informational purposes. It is not legal advice and does not form an attorney-client relationship. Talk to a qualified family law attorney for legal advice regarding your unique situation.

Laws may up child support

New child support laws passed this year by the Louisiana Legislature could mean an increase in the financial commitment paying parents make to their children.
State lawmakers debated more than a dozen bills relating to the management of children after their parents break up. Nine were approved by the legislators and ended up on the governor’s desk.
“Child support has a very significant impact on people today,” Robbie Endris, executive director of the Department of Social Services’ Support Enforcement Services Division.
It is typical during a nonfiscal regular session, which is every other year, for lawmakers to push a number of changes to the laws governing child support, she said.
One of the bills that made it into law allows judges to add special expenses for camps, music lessons and sports to child-support obligations.
Tamithia Shaw, co-chair of the child-support guidelines review committee, which recommended the legislation as part of its quadrennial report this year, said her committee found that after a divorce, the noncustodial parent is less willing to pay for activities.
Judges already had the discretion to add support for extra activities, but they felt reluctant to do so, she said.
“They didn’t feel they had the right to add that,” Shaw said.
“We’re really trying to address those situations where they refuse to pay anything,” said state Rep. Joseph Lopinto, R-Metairie and sponsor of House Bill 339.
As it was being considered in the Legislature, some senators argued the bill could create an excessive financial burden on those paying child support.
Lopinto said judges still get discretion in determining what a reasonable request is to provide support.
HB339 also gives the court the option, in cases where the monthly income of the parent exceeds $30,000, to place a portion of the obligation in a trust for the child.
Lopinto said some people, like professional athletes, get large incomes for a short amount of time. When they no longer have that income, their child support obligation drops, he said.
During the time they are making income that exceeds the child support schedule, judges can put the money in a trust for the child, he said.
“It just provides a little safety net now for the child,” Endris said.
The child-support schedule, which is used to determine how much a parent will pay based on their income, was expanded by another measure signed into law to include monthly combined income between $20,000 of $30,000. It also updated the payment amounts for monthly incomes starting at $2,250.
Shaw said the current schedule was based on economic data from 1972.
Judges were allowed to use their discretion to set child support payments for incomes that exceeded the schedule, but the law now allows for greater consistency, Shaw said.
One Senate bill held up in committee would have allowed for adjustments to child support payments for parents with children in more than one family. The measure was not part of the Department of Social Service’s agenda but was recommended by the Louisiana State Law Institute.
State Sen. Derrick Shepherd, D-Marrero, sponsor of Senate Bill 605, said the measure is needed to eliminate the “race to the courthouse” that current law allows.
For example, a man has children with two women. Whichever mother files for child support first, the court uses the father’s income at that point to calculate the child support payment.
Then, if the other mother files for child support, the father’s now-diminished income will be used to calculate that child support payment.
So, whoever files for child support first gets the largest payment, Shepherd said.
One measure that attracted attention but failed to pass was House Bill 341 by state Rep. Robert Johnson, D-Marksville. The measure would have clarified how to determine income for parents who are self-employed.
“Not every person who is self-employed is trying to conceal income,” Shaw said. “But when you do have someone conceal, it’s usually in those cases.”
HB341 as it was originally written was not controversial, having not received a single “no” vote. But a hot button amendment was tacked on HB341 late in the session and the measure died.

The controversial amendment started out as Senate Bill 110, which passed the Senate but was voted down by a House committee on May 28. The bill’s wording was then tacked onto HB341.
The amendment would have allowed the state Department of Social Services to seize casino winnings to pay past-due child support.
Endris said this is the third time the Legislature has considered some type of gambling interception bill. More states are passing similar bills, and it’s something the federal government is considering too, she said.
“It will certainly be coming back again,” Endris said. “If the parent’s a winner, the children should be winners, too.”

DNA PROVED DIFFERENT

Seven children call Terress Sims “Daddy” but for nearly 11 years one other child’s mother says he’s responsible for an 8th. He says he’s not.
“If I claim all these kids, which is a good number for children, why should I be denying one,” asked Sims.
He says the SC Department of Social Services told him he’d have to pay for the DNA test to prove he wasn’t the Daddy. “I was like I can’t afford it one right now and they told me basically they made me well they’re like you got to pay until you can afford one,” said Sims.
So he was ordered to pay thousands in child support but says he finally stopped for good when the girl started to not look like him. When we asked Sims if he took care of this child thinking it was his he replied, “No, I wasn’t. I wasn’t thinking it was mine. I was paying because they made me, otherwise I’d go to jail.”
And when he didn’t pay he was sentenced to 6 months in jail.
“I went to jail later on in the year,” said Sims. “I went to jail twice.”
Family court documents we obtained showed in May of this year he had a genetic test showing he wasn’t the father but DSS required an additional test.
How could that not be good enough? DSS wouldn’t answer that question citing confidentiality but claims they would never force someone to front the money to have a DNA test done.
“We will go ahead and have the tests done,” said DSS Director of Child Support Enforcement Larry McKeown. “If the individual is excluded there is no cost. If the individual is found to be the father than we would ask the court to have the individual reimburse us.”
Not true says Mr. Sims who lost more than just money he lost his freedom.
“That’s time away from your life you can’t get back,” Sims said.
Family court tell us from here Mr. Sims will be able to ask DSS to schedule another hearing to see if he can get his money back. That’s up to the judge. 7 On Your Side will continue to follow his case and let you know what happens.
For more information about disputing child support enforcement claims and starting a case with DSS call 864-282-4650 or click here. You have to watch this to believe this clip to believe it. http://www.wspa.com/spa/news/local/article/man_says_dna_tests_prove_baby_isnt_his/5783/

Protecting yourself from paternity fraud

Paternity fraud is the act of falsely naming a man to be the biological father of a child, particularly for the purpose of collecting child financial support , by the mother when she knows or suspects that he is not the biological father.

In cases of paternity fraud, there are many potential victims: the defrauded man, the child deprived of a relationship with his/her biological father, the biological father who is deprived of his relationship with his child. Subsidiary victims include the defrauded child's and the men's families. In particular, financial hardship may have resulted for the defrauded man's children and spouse in cases in which the man made child support payments for the unrelated child.
In some jurisdictions in some countries, there is limited opportunity to legally challenge the assumption of paternity.

If you choose to do so you can request DNA tests for you and the children. Expect to pay upward of $400 for the testing, but if you believe a child is not your biological, it's a worthwhile expense. Your goal is to avoid becoming a victim of "Paternity Fraud." Monetary gain is generally the reason that most women lie about the children biolocial parent. Most men will be on the hook for 18 or more years of child support for a child or children who aren't yours. The bad news is that paternity fraud is not uncommon. If the DNA tests show that you're not the father, you need to get a lawyer and challenge paternity. Depending on where you live, you'll typically have six to 24 months to do so. Forbidding men to challenge paternity, especially in the context of marriage, by limiting the amount of time allowed to challenge paternity, or by allowing women to make a claim paternity without adequate chance for rebuttal by the alleged father. Such is the case in state of California U.S.A.. In some jurisdictions, the husband of the mother of a child is held to be the father, regardless of biological relationship. Access to such testing is restricted in some jurisdictions as it is held to not be in the best interests of the child for such information to become available. A man finding out that the child is not his biological child contrary to information supplied by the mother may result in his rejection of the child or mother.

One man received a bill for $75,000 in back child support. That came a quite a surprise, since he didn't think he had any children. He tracked down his ex-girlfriend and his child and got a paternity test, which proved conclusively that he was not the father. But because he hadn't challenged paternity soon enough he was still held responsible for the arrears. In another case, a dad found 18 months after his divorce that the child he'd been paying support for was not his. The mother admitted she lied about the child's paternity, but because the deadline to challenge had passed, dad'll be paying $1,200/month for the next 15 years - more than $200,000! Unfortunately, even challenging paternity within the window doesn't guarantee that you'll avoid being defrauded. In many states, when a child is born during a marriage, the husband is presumed to be the father - biology is irrelevant. So even if DNA shows that he's not the father, he'll still owe child support. Why are the courts making men pay for children who aren't theirs, whom they may never have met or known about or have no legal rights to see? Unfortunately, it's big business. Many states receive government funds for every child support claim they issue, and they may take a percentage of money collected - often to the tune of tens of millions of dollars per year. The big complication here is that you undoubtedly love your son and you may decide that you want to claim him as your own regardless of what a paternity test might show.

Unfortunately this is very common behavior in women. Collectin child support is one thing but collecting child support should be a crime, a felony. This would at least stop women claiming a man is the father and he is not. Then restitution should be paid for all the money that was paid to that woman with interest. That should be the next bill that should pass as law!

Locking men up for not paying child support

I don't believe that Locking men up for not paying child support is the answer. Once a child is born it is the obligation of the mother and father is to raise that child and take care of him or her. Treating a man or woman like a common criminal because they can not afford to pay child support is not the answer.You not only ruin the father’s life but the child as well. The point is not to figure how to lock him or her up, but how to make them contribute to the cause. So many programs could be initiated that would help although if a work release programs could be implemented it would be a resolution to one big problem. 1st he pays child support and he would pay fees to remain in the program. Most important to stay in the program he has to participate in the child’s life. This could be a simple answer to a big problem. We just need a open mind to make it work.

Child support unit movingBy

The child support unit in District Attorney Larry Moore’s office is planning a move in the near future that will create some relief for workers, which should translate to better services for customers.
According to Jennifer Gourd, who works in Moore’s child support office, the basic purpose of the child support office is currently limited by physical space restrictions in the courthouse.
“Our main function is establishing and enforcing child support,” she said. “We currently have more than 5,000 cases open. There are 11 people on staff, but there are supposed to be 16. Right now, we don’t have the space, and we are in very cramped quarters. Moving to a new facility will allow us a better ratio of caseworkers to cases.”
Remodeling of a structure to house the child support office at Denison and Main streets is under way. It will be in a section of adjoined business named Bodega Bay by the property owner.
Gourd provided some explanation of duties assigned to the child support unit.
“The program was created in 1975 for welfare recovery,” she said. “One thing we do is establish support orders; the custodial parent can name the father, who can come to court and acknowledge he is the parent or request a DNA test.”
Gourd listed several other responsibilities the unit handles.
“We also enforce existing orders, and we’re also charged with collecting Temporary Assistance to Needy Families,” she said. “We enforce payment for foster care from the biological parents, we enforce medical support, we can enforce support alimony, and we can enforce child support orders issued in other states.”
Moore said the new facility, which may be ready in August or September, is more than twice the size of the current space.
He explained the importance of having good child support services, which are offered free of charge to the custodial parent.
“The child support division statewide is for whichever parent has custody, and it enables them to better collect child support,” he said.
Moore said the majority of cases involve mothers trying to collect support they are owed.
“These are cases where paternity has been an issue, or the paying parent gets behind on payment or will not pay,” he said. “It is a service.”
Moore added that the new facility also will have room for expansion.

Video: Ex-Heavyweight Champ Holyfield in Court for Back Child-Support

Ex-Heavyweight Champ Holyfield in Court for Back Child-Support



A woman wants thousands of dollars in back child-support from former heavyweight champion, Evander Holyfield or else.The woman asked a Fayette County judge to throw the champ in jail if the debts aren’t paid.

Irvin said she was trying to protect the 10 year-old son she shares with Holyfield. Irvin said the child doesn't medical insurance has been informed that he must leave private school. Irvin said her home may soon be in foreclosure.Holyfield dominated the boxing ring, but Thursday, he was in a very public battle with one of the mothers of his children.Irvin said, while Holyfield lives lavishly in a $10 million Fairburn estate complete with a movie theater, lap pool and bowling alley, she and one of the Holyfield's sons are just days away from foreclosure.Irvin's attorney said Holyfield is three months behind in child support to the tune of $9,000. According to a court document filed in Fayette County Wednesday, Holyfield is not in compliance with a 1999 Child Support Agreement. In it, Irvin said the Holyfield agreed to provide health insurance, private school and a college and grad school tuition trust. She claims he's in violation of all three. Irvin's family law attorney is now asking a judge to jail the Holyfield if he doesn't cough up the money.

Unfortunately Holyfield income has changed and he is in a bankrupt status, and because is his income has drastically been reduced because he is not boxing he should not have to pay $3,000 a month. Its obvious that he was paying support but there has been a impact change in his life, no big pay days. Is putting a man in jail because he can not afford to pay child support really in the best interest of the child?

Changes in child support to begin

The biggest overhaul of the child support system for separated parents in more than two decades will come into effect on Tuesday.
The federal government says while a few parents will have to pay more in child support to former partners, most would not be greatly affected.
The most significant change is the way payments will be calculated for around 1.5 million separated and divorced parents nationwide.
The federal government says the new formula aims to share the costs of raising children more fairly and replaces a 20-year-old mathematical calculation.
It treats both parents incomes equally and takes into account the amount of care each parent provides.
Previously a parent had to give more than 30 per cent of care before there was a reduction in payment to the primary care giver.
The formula also treats the cost of raising children from first and second families equally.
It also takes into account additional incomes, such as pensions and salary sacrifice, when calculating payments.
Child Support Agency (CSA) acting general manager Trevor Sutton said only a small number of people would see significant changes in their payments.
"For the vast majority of people the changes won't be huge in terms of dollar losses or gains," Mr Sutton told AAP.
"But some parents will be upset and it is understandable, but our main message is for people to contact us and talk about the changes so we can properly explain them."
Human Services Minister Joe Ludwig said the new formula was based on the cost of raising children today.
"There have been considerable changes to Australian society since the Child Support Scheme was created 20 years ago," Senator Ludwig said in a statement.
Other changes to the system include measures to crack down on suspected child support cheats.
As of Tuesday, CSA will have the ability to employ private investigators to spy on suspected offenders.
The measure, announced by the federal government last week, is designed to help the CSA collect debts of $1 billion.
Senator Ludwig said the new scheme "aims to meet the best interests of children, reduce conflict between parents and ensure child support is paid in full and on time".
Parents can view detailed information about the new scheme on the CSA website www.csa.gov.au/schemereforms.

Man $120,000 behind in child support gets 9-year sentence in South Bend

Charles Gillam was ordered by a St. Joseph Circuit Court to serve 9 years in prison for not paying more than $120,000 of in child support.
SOUTH BEND — A 34-year-old South Bend man was sentenced to serve nine years in prison for not paying child support.
Charles Gillam also was ordered by a St. Joseph Circuit Court magistrate to be placed on probation for 15 years upon his release from prison.
He was more than $120,000 in arrears as of Jan. 31, according to a news release from the St. Joseph County prosecutor’s office.
Gillam pleaded guilty in 2007 to three counts of non-support of a dependent child, a Class C felony.

I understand the need to enforce child support payments, but a class c felony? So the 9 years that he is locked up he can not pay, is his obligation still in effect? If so then the man is set up to fail, right? If he is at $120,000 now when he is released he will owe even more right? If locked up more than 3 times for same offense, does the 3 strike rule fall in effect?

Is there anything I can do about my ex neglecting his visitation rights?

My ex and I have a 4 year old daughter and a 2 year old son together. Our divorce states that he is to pay child support and have the children every other weekend and on certain holidays. He pays child support, but he refuses to take the children every other weekend. Instead, he goes four to five months without seeing them and then drops by on one of his weekends and takes them. This is starting to cause emotional problems with both of them. Our daughter has always been extremely close to him. She wants to see him and gets really excited about going to his house and spending time with him. However, he is full of empty promises to come and get her and she is broken hearted every time he doesn't show up. It also really affects her when he shows up out of nowhere, takes her with him on Friday, and then walks right back out of her life on Sunday. She always wants to know why he never came back to get her and why she can't go and see him. I do my best to explain things to her without putting him down and making her feel worse, but a few months later he'll pop right back into her life and confuse her again.As for our son, his father is almost like a stranger to him. He only saw him twice for the first 6 months of his life. When my ex drops by for his visit with them every 4-5 months, our son does not want to go with him. He cries when they leave and cries for the entire weekend. I don't want to make him go, but he is paying child support and I have no choice.This can't be healthy for our children. In my opinion, being a father is an all or nothing job. I think he should take his visits as he is supposed to or just sign over all rights to me. I realize I would lose child support if he signed over all rights, but I have to do what is best for them. I don't want him to walk out of their life forever, but I have to wonder if that could be any worse than what they are going through now. Is there anything I can do to force him to take his visitation with them or sign over rights if he doesn't? I live in Alabama if that helps on any state laws.I am sorry for such a long post, but I really need some advice on this. It is breaking my heart to see my babies so upset when there is nothing I can do to make it better! Thanks for taking the time to read this and thanks in advance for any advice you can offer.

answer: What's best for the kids is to keep their dad in their life as much as possible. Kids will follow your attitude on this, so if you stay positive then you're doing your kids a big favor. When your kids are older, they will figure things out for themselves and if dad is still a flake when they are teenagers, they'll probably refuse to see him when they are old enough to make that choice. Until then, change your attitude and teach them some coping skills. You can set the expectations so there's less disappointment if he doesn't show up. You can have a Plan B -- something else to do that's just as fun -- if he doesn't show up. It will also help to keep your personal feelings on the matter to yourself when your children are present or within ear shot. If they hear you speaking poorly of their father, it will influence how they feel and they will remember it when they are older. So take the high road. As far as dealing with your ex, I'd take extra measures to call him during the week to remind him when it's time for visitation. It's not ideal and it's sad that you need to do it, but it sounds like he needs the extra push to put his kids at the top of his agenda. But if you take a positive attitude with him and remind him how much the children need their father and how much you appreciate him when he is involved with the children -- you might be able to work through this without going to court or escalating the situation. Your end goal is to get him to understand he is needed and his children are number one. You don't need a judge for that. You need tons of patience and a loving, supportive attitude. People do change. Someday he will probably thank you for not allowing him to walk out on those kids. And someday your kids will thank you for doing all you could to keep dad involved. Good luck. You have your work cut out for you.