Nanny State anyone?

[Yurt]

I would be interested in hearing why you think a court that exists in every jurisdicion in this country is illegal.

I can make a much better case that forcing a sitting President to testify is illegal.

and we might see a rebellion here yet....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I would be interested in hearing why you think a court that exists in every jurisdicion in this country is illegal.

I can make a much better case that forcing a sitting President to testify is illegal.

Family Court violates parents rights. Their 4th and 5th amendment rights. It violates the very premise of our legal system, Innocent till proven Guilty. It imposes legal rulings with the force of law on people that have no legal ability to carry out the ruling. It strips parents of the ability to punish, restrain or control their children while ordering them to do JUST that.

Further in our legal system one has a right to face their accuser, in Family Court you have no such right. You have no right to trial by Jury either. And you are required to prove innocents on what ever charge the State makes against you. Family Court can rule against you and even if you PROVE the ruling was wrong, you have no rights to have the ruling overturned or removed. Family Court claims that they are not criminal in nature and so you have no 5th amendment rights, yet has the power to send you to jail, to remove your children from your care, to use your testimony in another Court as a criminal case.

Family Courts further order you to never discuss the Court rulings with others or form advocacy groups to fight the system. Another violation of Constitutional Rights. Family Courts can impose legal sanctions against you if you try to fight the Court through any other Court system.

 

[Gunny]

Family Court violates parents rights. Their 4th and 5th amendment rights. It violates the very premise of our legal system, Innocent till proven Guilty. It imposes legal rulings with the force of law on people that have no legal ability to carry out the ruling. It strips parents of the ability to punish, restrain or control their children while ordering them to do JUST that.

Further in our legal system one has a right to face their accuser, in Family Court you have no such right. You have no right to trial by Jury either. And you are required to prove innocents on what ever charge the State makes against you. Family Court can rule against you and even if you PROVE the ruling was wrong, you have no rights to have the ruling overturned or removed. Family Court claims that they are not criminal in nature and so you have no 5th amendment rights, yet has the power to send you to jail, to remove your children from your care, to use your testimony in another Court as a criminal case.

Family Courts further order you to never discuss the Court rulings with others or form advocacy groups to fight the system. Another violation of Constitutional Rights. Family Courts can impose legal sanctions against you if you try to fight the Court through any other Court system.

Unfortunately, I'd be willing to bet another court backs all that crap up. And again, unfortunately, something that more than likely started off with the best of intentions ran into the mindless, uncaring bureaucracy. The idea being to protect the rights of the children.

In practice, it's like dealing with the Gestapo. Any good they do is always tainted by that.

The bottom line in this case is the judge's ruling, by law, was not illegal. He in fact handed out the max sentence allowable by law. Now I'm not buying this "the father made a promise" junk. He was given an edict, period.

You are trying to argue a legal ruling against "common knowledge." Anyone with common sense knows the double standard exists, but the argument will always boil down to "put them in time out, it works." "No legislation has taken away your rights to punish." No, they just take away the means to enforce punishment, and if the child calls CPS on you, you have to prove your innocence to the court, as you already pointed out.

What do you do to force a 16 years old to do anything if they just don't give a shit? Nothing. You can't.

Further, I think making ANYONE's punishment/freedom contingent on someone else COMPLETING something is absurd.

Basically, the way I read it, you can go to high school in Ohio until you're 18, not complete it, and nobody gives a shit. But drop out when your 16, you HAVE TO take and pass the GED test or your parent goes to jail. That's just stupid.

 

[ReillyT]

What are you on about?

Family Court violates parents rights. Their 4th and 5th amendment rights. It violates the very premise of our legal system, Innocent till proven Guilty. It imposes legal rulings with the force of law on people that have no legal ability to carry out the ruling. It strips parents of the ability to punish, restrain or control their children while ordering them to do JUST that.

The state has general police powers that allow it to regulate the actions of its citizens. It has always been thus. It doesn't operate on the premise of innnocent until proven guilty because it is not a criminal tribunal. Its first concern (in the scenarios you are talking about) is the welfare of children.

Further in our legal system one has a right to face their accuser, in Family Court you have no such right.

It is not a criminal tribunal.

And you are required to prove innocents on what ever charge the State makes against you.

Nobody is required to prove their innocence. The standard is generally "preponderance of the evidence," which means that where the state is involved it has to establish that its position is more likely than not.

Family Court can rule against you and even if you PROVE the ruling was wrong, you have no rights to have the ruling overturned or removed.

To the first point: how? On the second point, one can appeal family court decisions.

Family Court claims that they are not criminal in nature and so you have no 5th amendment rights, yet has the power to send you to jail, to remove your children from your care, to use your testimony in another Court as a criminal case.

True, you have no 5th Amendment rights in family court. Any judge has the right to send you to jail for contempt. That doesn't just apply to family court. Of course family courts have the right to remove your children. Protecting children is part of their function. It is possible that statements made can be used in criminal proceedings, but court's try to balance the need to make statements versus the criminal repurcussions, and will often stay the family court proceedings until the criminal proceedings have finished.

Family Courts further order you to never discuss the Court rulings with others or form advocacy groups to fight the system. Another violation of Constitutional Rights. Family Courts can impose legal sanctions against you if you try to fight the Court through any other Court system.

I don't know what you are referring to here, but there are courts of appeal to protect citizens' rights should a Family Court overstep its bounds.

Maybe this individual case was a bad decision, but sometimes judges make bad decisions. That isn't an indictment of the family court system. It is an indictment of humanity.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ok, wh is it that once a man is found responsible for child support that even if he later proves by DNA that he was never the Father the Court will not EVER stop forcing him to pay? Some oversight.

And your argument that because you and they CLAIM it is not criminal makes it ok is bullshit. If not criminal why was this father sent to JAIL? By what authority if the Court is not CRIMINAL in nature?

And again YOU have to prove you are not guilty of what ever accusation a Family Court makes and have no right to even see your accuser.

Just because the Government pretends it is not criminal does not make it so. The Court has the power to lay fines, to enforce fines, to lay judgement of monthly payment, to enforce said judgement, to place you in JAIL and to enforce that edict of Jail time.

 

[ReillyT]

Ok, wh is it that once a man is found responsible for child support that even if he later proves by DNA that he was never the Father the Court will not EVER stop forcing him to pay? Some oversight.

I don't know. What is the standard for fatherhood under state law? Is it a biological standard?

And your argument that because you and they CLAIM it is not criminal makes it ok is bullshit. If not criminal why was this father sent to JAIL? By what authority if the Court is not CRIMINAL in nature?

Ever heard of civil contempt?

And again YOU have to prove you are not guilty of what ever accusation a Family Court makes and have no right to even see your accuser.

Repeating it doesn't make it so. The burden of proof in family court is on the state (if the state is the other party) and the standard is "preponderance of the evidence." The only time you don't have the right to defend yourself is in the case of an emergency removal order, which is temporary (usually valid for only a couple of weeks) and subject to hearings after the emergency removal. I don't think that is such a high price to pay for the protection of children from abuse.

I don't think you have a right to confront your accuser if it is not a criminal matter, and children haven't always been treated differently, even under criminal law. Ex parte hearings on the testimony of the children is probably what is used. A 7 year old in the witness stand (even in a criminal proceeding) could be very dicey. Questioning can be done outside of the court and with the court's supervision.

Just because the Government pretends it is not criminal does not make it so. The Court has the power to lay fines, to enforce fines, to lay judgement of monthly payment, to enforce said judgement, to place you in JAIL and to enforce that edict of Jail time.

Every court can send you to jail or force you to pay a fine for being in comtempt. The imposition of a monthly payment is for support. It is civil, not criminal. The government can also sue you for desecrating or destroying government property (civilly, not criminally) and force you to pay for the damage. That isn't a criminal proceeding.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You are part of the problem. And if actually NOT being the father of a child has no bearing on being RULED as the father then I suggest any "court" that supports that concept is illegal.

 

[ReillyT]

You are part of the problem. And if actually NOT being the father of a child has no bearing on being RULED as the father then I suggest any "court" that supports that concept is illegal.

Very insightful post RGS. You have really hit your stride.

Once again, it depends what a "father" is under state law. If you respect states' rights, then you should allow them to define the term in the way they see fit. If the voters disagree, they can vote someone in who will legislate a different definition. There is no pressing constitutional question over the meaning of father, because the Constitution leaves stuff like that to the states.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Very insightful post RGS. You have really hit your stride.

Once again, it depends what a "father" is under state law. If you respect states' rights, then you should allow them to define the term in the way they see fit. If the voters disagree, they can vote someone in who will legislate a different definition. There is no pressing constitutional question over the meaning of father, because the Constitution leaves stuff like that to the states.

In other words you do not give one rats shit if men are forced to pay for children they are not the father's of by a court system out of control. "thanks for playing" TM 2008 RGS

 

[ReillyT]

In other words you do not give one rats shit if men are forced to pay for children they are not the father's of by a court system out of control. "thanks for playing" TM 2008 RGS

Yep. Don't like the definition of "father," try to get it changed. That is democracy in action.

 

[jillian]

Unfortunately, I'd be willing to bet another court backs all that crap up. And again, unfortunately, something that more than likely started off with the best of intentions ran into the mindless, uncaring bureaucracy. The idea being to protect the rights of the children.

In practice, it's like dealing with the Gestapo. Any good they do is always tainted by that.

The bottom line in this case is the judge's ruling, by law, was not illegal. He in fact handed out the max sentence allowable by law. Now I'm not buying this "the father made a promise" junk. He was given an edict, period.

You are trying to argue a legal ruling against "common knowledge." Anyone with common sense knows the double standard exists, but the argument will always boil down to "put them in time out, it works." "No legislation has taken away your rights to punish." No, they just take away the means to enforce punishment, and if the child calls CPS on you, you have to prove your innocence to the court, as you already pointed out.

What do you do to force a 16 years old to do anything if they just don't give a shit? Nothing. You can't.

Further, I think making ANYONE's punishment/freedom contingent on someone else COMPLETING something is absurd.

Basically, the way I read it, you can go to high school in Ohio until you're 18, not complete it, and nobody gives a shit. But drop out when your 16, you HAVE TO take and pass the GED test or your parent goes to jail. That's just stupid.

Actually,the man went to jail for violating the court's order. It is entirely possible that the court issued many orders that were ignored or felt that the daughter was sent to her mom's specifically so the man could violate the order.

And yes, the appellate court will back it up.

 

[Gunny]

Actually,the man went to jail for violating the court's order. It is entirely possible that the court issued many orders that were ignored or felt that the daughter was sent to her mom's specifically so the man could violate the order.

And yes, the appellate court will back it up.

Which makes the law no less stupid.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

By the way, I saw a news clip that reported he was freed by another Judge. So I guess even another Judge agreed the punishment was retarded. On the clip I also discovered the charges were 3 YEARS old, they happened when the girl was 16. Maybe someone could explain why the Judge waited until she was almost 19 to punish the father? Could it be because when she was 16 the Father did make a good faith effort to carry out the Court order?