MS - Do 'child support' payments stop if child is in prison?
in [Divorce]
|
From: Dusty on 30 Aug 2006 16:49 Let's all play the Spot the Spin game!! You folks at home can play along too, just read the following article and see if you can - Spot the Spin! ------------------------------------------------------------ http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060829/OPINION/608290315/1166 August 29, 2006 Do 'child support' payments stop if child is in prison? By Jack Elliott Jr. The Associated Press In recent weeks, the Mississippi Supreme Court has cited a "compelling argument" by a father wanting to either end or reduce child support payments for a minor serving a life sentence for murder. Lawmakers might take notice of what was a hint from the Supreme Court that state law is vague on the issues raised by Danny Edmonds. He said his son, Tyler Edmonds, no longer needs the $213 a month because the Mississippi Department of Corrections is providing food, shelter and clothing for the teen. Danny Edmonds has been making the payments to his ex-wife, Sharon Edmonds. Tyler Edmonds, now 16, was convicted of murder in 2004 in the shooting death of his half-sister's husband. He was 14 at the time of the slaying. He is serving a life sentence. His attorneys are appealing the conviction. A Clay County chancellor ruled against Danny Edmonds, as did the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court also threw out $5,000 awarded Sharon Edmonds by the chancellor to pay part of Tyler's defense bill. In throwing out the criminal defense money, the Supreme Court said Danny Edmonds should not be "financially liable for the costs related to Tyler's criminal appeal which she (Sharon) incurred unilaterally." The Supreme Court said state law doesn't address the question of whether child support can be terminated to a minor who's given a lengthy prison sentence. The court said the law allows for modifications in child support when circumstances have changed for the mother, father or child. The Supreme Court kicked the case back to Clay County for consideration of Danny Edmonds' request to reduce his child support payments. Justice James E. Graves Jr. wrote in the Supreme Court decision that neither parent was directly providing for Tyler's daily support. He said the mother's only support of Tyler, as it pertains to routine expenses normally contemplated by child support, was about $140 per month that she deposited into his canteen account, which provided Tyler with items that are not provided by the Department of Corrections. However, Graves said Tyler could not be considered emancipated under state law. "He is not 21, has not married, and is not full time employed. He did not voluntarily move from his home, although it can be argued that he has independent living arrangements," Graves wrote. Lawmakers must consider whether to amend the law to address the incarceration question, or wait on the Supreme Court to revisit the issue in another case. From posting faces on billboards to issuing most wanted lists to suspending hunting privileges to going after professional licenses to paternity testing, some lawmakers believe they may have pushed the legal limits of what they can do to get folks to support their children. The courts have stepped in from time to time. For example, the Supreme Court said in 2003 that one unpleasant meeting between a child and his estranged father was no grounds to suspend child support payments. It overturned a ruling by a lower court that the father had proved that he had no relationship with his son and suspended future child support. The justices said to allow the father to terminate his obligations to his child after one unpleasant visit was "rewarding the father for not taking an active role in his child's life." Still, many try to get out of paying child support. Danny Edmonds just tried another track and failed. For now. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jack Elliott Jr. is a writer for The Associated Press in Jackson.
From: John Meyer on 30 Aug 2006 18:18 Dusty wrote: > Let's all play the Spot the Spin game!! > > You folks at home can play along too, just read the following article and > see if you can - Spot the Spin! I can't really see the spin here, other than the last line, but even that can be argued as relatively neutural. And this line could actually be seen as favorable. "From posting faces on billboards to issuing most wanted lists to suspending hunting privileges to going after professional licenses to paternity testing, some lawmakers believe they may have pushed the legal limits of what they can do to get folks to support their children." The article could be seen as slightly favorable or neutural towards NCPs, although I would peg it as neutural, analyzing a decision and the trend.
From: briggman@gmail.com on 30 Aug 2006 22:36 In Virginia, the non-custodial parent pays if the kid's in jail, foster care, etc. Only once a child emancipates or is adopted, or when parental rights are terminated are one's support obligations terminated.
From: Dusty on 30 Aug 2006 22:39 "John Meyer" <johndotelldotmeyeratgeemaildotcom(a)remove.me> wrote in message news:_6adnd82L_Avk2vZnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d(a)comcast.com... > Dusty wrote: >> Let's all play the Spot the Spin game!! >> >> You folks at home can play along too, just read the following article and >> see if you can - Spot the Spin! > > > I can't really see the spin here, other than the last line, but even that > can be argued as relatively neutural. > > And this line could actually be seen as favorable. > "From posting faces on billboards to issuing most wanted lists to > suspending > hunting privileges to going after professional licenses to paternity > testing, some lawmakers believe they may have pushed the legal limits of > what they can do to get folks to support their children." > > The article could be seen as slightly favorable or neutural towards NCPs, > although I would peg it as neutural, analyzing a decision and the trend. Just who -is- supporting this "child"? Certainly NOT the mother. If the State is now acting as custodian, why is it that there is still money being passed from one parent to the other?? I'll tell you why - it's NOT "child support", it's MOMMY support, aka: Backdoor Alimony! Pure and simple, C$ has nothing, nada, zip, zilch, zero to do with children. It has EVERYTHING to do with keeping the poor, wee, little, defenseless victim (aka: females) from having to actually work for a bloody living!
From: Werebat on 31 Aug 2006 06:54
briggman(a)gmail.com wrote: > In Virginia, the non-custodial parent pays if the kid's in jail, foster > care, etc. Only once a child emancipates or is adopted, or when > parental rights are terminated are one's support obligations > terminated. Who do they pay -- the state, or the "C"P? If they pay the "C"P, how is this justified considering that the "C"P isn't really supporting the child? - Ron ^*^ |