A fugitive people within a nation is tyranny.

Posts tagged ‘military’

Obama & New Police Reform

reposted from Canada Free Press by Moody Jim Rathbone

Obama police flagMayors and city councils—in office largely courtesy of public apathy—are President Barack Obama’s boots on the ground in the ongoing, carefully orchestrated racial riots coming soon to a city near you. In their bid to rescue America from total Marxist eclipse, patriots, as it turns out, have been knocking on the wrong door.

Republicans, who surrendered to the Democrats even after taking over House and Senate in last Midterm elections, have no dog in the racial riots in Ferguson, Baltimore and other cities, but Mayor Stephanie Rowlings-Blake, who ordered a police stand down in Baltimore, and a bevy of other Democrat mayors, do.

With the undercover help of activist municipal mayors and councils, Obama seeks not to reform the nation’s police—but to totally replace them.

obamas new dealWhile diverting public attention by snubbing senators, and overriding both Constitution and Congress, Obama is now hammering the final nail in the Fundamental Transformation of America coffin.

It’s a mission aided and abetted by mercenary ‘civil rights‘ activists Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and one largely conducted out of sight with White House help.

Local civic elections consistently have the lowest voter turnout, yet represent the level of government that poses the biggest threat to liberty and freedom. It is through complicit mayors and councils that the United Nations has been able to forge the road to Agenda 21 for all of Western society. here

As incredible as it may seem, it is with the cooperation of municipal politicians that Obama will get to replace every police force in the United States with a more military styled one that is answerable only to him.

Baltimore riots 1‘We the People’ should have seen Baltimore and Ferguson coming on July 2, 2008, when Obama boasted in Colorado Springs, CO:  “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

Most assumed he was talking about the military, which he soon began to hollow out.

Few realized the most anti-American president ever elected had his sight fixed on replacing thousands of police forces across the country, whose job it has always been to keep the public peace, with his own military-style police.

It’s the return of Fidel Castro, only this time in America.

By ridding the nation of its traditional police forces, Obama and his army of activist municipal politicians will be tossing into the trash can first responders who happen to wear the Serve & Protect badge.

Getting there has been Marxist Community organizing all the way.

Scott-police-fatal-shootingFirst came the smear job spreading the fallacy that police deliberately profile only young blacks, and are addicted to the habit of randomly shooting them. Marxist propaganda leaves the disingenuous impression that racist rogue cops dominate most police forces.

Within days of the Baltimore riots, Obama made it clear he wouldn’t be surveying the damage; wouldn’t be lifting a finger to call for calm.

He didn’t have to with the mayor doing his dirty work.

Baltimore riot policeOne hundred police officers were injured in the Baltimore riots. Businesses up and running only the day before were left in burnt-out rubble, facts carelessly written off by Obama.

Obama’s reaction to what’s going on in Baltimore has been expressed in words as casual as they are well crafted:

“The communities in Baltimore that are having these problems now are no different from the communities in Chicago when I first started working” as a community organizer, Obama said. “I’ve seen this movie too many times before.” (National Journal, April 29, 2015)

The difference now is that it’s Obama directing the racial riot movie.

With the Republicans snoozing at the switch, and most unsuspecting folk not knowing that Obama’s boots on the ground are the municipalities, what’s going to stop him from accomplishing his latest mission?

debtor's prison - tyrannyObama counts on the same kind of apathy that dogs municipal elections about racial riots that are being staged, right down to including outside protesters being rushed in to the scene of the riots.

Like in televised episodes of Hill Street Blues, when the Black Arrows, Shamrocks and Los Diablos came together when there was something in it for them, the Bloods, the Crips and the Nation of Islam came together in Baltimore.

That coming together of the three parties was unprecedented.

Yet, instead of asking why the Bloods, the Crips and the Nation of Islam would come together during the Baltimore riots, Rowlings-Blake thanked the Nation of Islam.

Talk show radio giant and patriot Mark Levin points out that Rowlings-Blake was in constant touch with chief Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett throughout the riots.

gas canBy throwing gasoline on the racial discord gathering steam in American cities, is Obama sending a message to America’s foreign enemies that the U.S. is now at its most vulnerable for a strike?

Are internet commenters like Richard Jackson who posits: “I think the riots are simply programming people to get used to a military presence (instead of police) and curfews, etc. for something bigger later on”, on the right track?

Should edgy folk be watching the Jade Helm 15 large-scale military exercise to be played out from July 15 to November 15, across seven states, with thousands of locals “participating or role playing in the exercise” wearing I.D. markings be watching the military instead of passively letting the military watch them?

Meanwhile, speaking to a group of schoolchildren at the Anacostia Library in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, Obama said he might return to community organizing.

In truth, his plans to nationalize America’s police forces, prove he’s never left it.

overthrow

police Baltimore letter

Advertisements

Soldier Paid Support for Kid that's Not His

by Roxanna Haynes – WKRN

soldier child support scamWhile a soldier was fighting overseas, he paid about $2,700 in child support for a child that wasn’t his own.

Christopher Childers’ wages were garnished to pay child support while he was deployed in Iraq, but the Tennessee Court of Appeals in Knoxville said in this ruling, the state can’t pay him back, even now that a DNA test has proven he’s not the father.

According to the proceeding, the child’s mother, Alexandria Price, sought assistance from the state and claimed Christopher Childers was the father of her baby.

His child support was set at $126.23 a week.

Childers then filed a motion for DNA testing.

The motion states: “I was deployed in Baghdad, Iraq… I never received a letter ordering me to report for a DNA test. Therefore, I was ordered the father by default.”

Mary Langford, a Family Law attorney, told Nashville’s News 2, “He claimed that he was not served with process, but it had been mailed to his parents home and never accepted. If that was the case, and if the records show that that was the case, it should have stopped right there.”

A juvenile court ordered the state to reimburse Childers, but the state appealed.

The appeals court determined that while the initial judgment was wrong, the juvenile court doesn’t have the jurisdiction to order the state to pay him back.

“The result here is exactly what it has to be under Tennessee law. We can’t force the state to reimburse someone,” Langford said.

Legal experts told Nashville’s News 2 that Childers’ best option now is to have the Tennessee Supreme Court try the case.

They also said Childers should have been issued an attorney because of the Service members Civil Relief Act (SCRA), which protects troops when they are unable to defend themselves in court.

Unable to Pay Child Support, Poor Parents Land Behind Bars

Judges can jail alleged defaulters — who are not covered by the presumption of innocence — without a trial

by Mike Brunker

from MSNBC September 19, 2011

obama

Barack Obama

It may not be a crime to be poor, but it can land you behind bars if you also are behind on your child-support payments.

Thousands of so-called “deadbeat” parents are jailed each year in the U.S. after failing to pay court-ordered child support — the vast majority of them for withholding or hiding money out of spite or a feeling that they’ve been unfairly gouged by the courts.

But in what might seem like an un-American plot twist from a Charles Dickens’ novel, advocates for the poor say, some parents are wrongly being locked away without any regard for their ability to pay — sometimes without the benefit of legal representation.

Randy Miller, a 39-year-old Iraqi war vet, found himself in that situation in November, when a judge in Floyd County, Ga., sent him to jail for violating a court order to pay child support.

He said he was stunned when the judge rebuffed his argument that he had made regular payments for more than a decade before losing his job in July 2009 and had recently resumed working.

“I felt that with my payment history and that I had just started working, maybe I would be able to convince the judge to give me another month and a half to start making the payments again,” he told msnbc.com. “… But that didn’t sit too well with him because he went ahead and decided to lock me up.”

Miller, who spent three months in jail before being released, is one of six plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit filed in March that seeks to force the state of Georgia to provide lawyers for poor non-custodial parents facing the loss of their freedom for failing to pay child support.

‘Debtors’ prisons’?
“Languishing in jail for weeks, months, and sometimes over a year, these parents share one trait … besides their poverty: They went to jail without ever talking to an attorney,” according to the lawsuit filed by the nonprofit Southern Center of Human Rights in Atlanta.

While jailing non-paying parents — the vast majority of them men — does lead to payment in many cases, critics say that it unfairly penalizes poor and unemployed parents who have no ability to pay, even though federal law stipulates that they must have “willfully” violated a court order before being incarcerated.

They compare the plight of such parents to the poor people consigned to infamous “debtors’ prisons” before such institutions were outlawed in the early 1800s.

“I try very carefully not to exaggerate, but I do think that’s an apt comparison,” said Sarah Geraghty, the attorney handling the Georgia case for the Southern Center for Human Rights.

“And I think anyone who went down and watched one of these proceedings would agree with me. … You see a room full of indigent parents — most of them African-American — and you have a judge and attorney general, both of whom are white. The hearings often take only 15 seconds. The judge asks, ‘Do you have any money to pay?’ the person pleads and the judge says, ‘OK you’re going to jail,’” she added.

The threat of jailing delinquent parents is intended to coerce them to pay, but in rare cases it can have tragic results.

In June, a New Hampshire father and military veteran, Thomas Ball, died after dousing himself with gasoline and setting himself ablaze in front of the Cheshire County Court House.

In a long, rambling letter to the local Sentinel newspaper, the 58-year-old Ball stated that he did so to focus attention on what he considered unfair domestic violence laws and because he expected to be jailed at an upcoming hearing on his failure to pay up to $3,000 in delinquent child support, even though he had been out of work for two years.

The ability of judges to jail parents without a trial is possible because failure to pay child support is usually handled as a civil matter, meaning that the non-custodial parent — or the “contemnor” in legal terms — is found guilty of contempt of court and ordered to appear at a hearing.

He or she is not entitled to some constitutional protections that criminal defendants receive, including the presumption of innocence. And in five states — Florida, Georgia, Maine, South Carolina and Ohio — one of the omitted protections is the right to an attorney.

Randall Kessler, a family law attorney in Atlanta and chairman of the American Bar Association’s family law division, said states have a great deal of leeway in family law, which includes child support cases.

“The main reason states are patchwork is because family law is a local idea,” he said. “It’s very infrequent that the federal government gets into family law, except for international custody every now and then and violence against women. … Each community’s laws are different in the way they treat child support collection, and the right to a lawyer and the right to a jury trial varies.”

Supreme Court: No right to a lawyer
The child support program currently serves approximately 17 million U.S. children, or nearly a quarter of the nation’s minors, according to a recent study by Elaine Sorensen, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute.

Critics of incarceration without representation had hoped that the U.S. Supreme Court would end the practice in its ruling in Turner v. Rogers, a case involving a South Carolina man who was repeatedly jailed for up to a year after failing to pay child support.

But the court ruled 5-4 in June that poor parents are not entitled to a court-appointed lawyer when facing jail for non-payment of child support. Instead, the justices said, states should use “substantial procedural safeguards” to ensure that those who have no means to pay are not locked up.

That is likely to force the states that don’t guarantee the right to an attorney to tighten their policies, said Colleen Eubanks, executive director of the National Child Support Enforcement Association, which represents state agencies. “Obviously they’re going to have to look at changing the rules,” she said.

Ken Wolfe, a spokesman for the federal Administration for Children and Families, which imposes some rules on state child support enforcement agencies in exchange for funding, said the agency expects to issue guidance to the states next month regarding the Turner case. He declined to provide any details.

But Libba Patterson, a law professor at the University of South Carolina and a former director of the state Department of Social Services, said the Supreme Court ruling provides “very weak protections” for poor parents and is unlikely on its own to solve the problem of wrongful incarceration of poor parents.

“It depends on the extent to which the court is truly interested in making a full inquiry on the ability-to-pay issue and on the resources the court has and the amount of judicial time,” she said.

Even in states where the non-custodial parents do have the right to a lawyer, those without the financial resources to meet their child-support obligations still frequently land in jail.

A 2009 study by the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan policy think tank in Washington, D.C., found that only half of the child support debtors in California prisons had reported income in the two preceding years. And the median net income of the others was a mere $2,881.

65 percent of paycheck taken
Geraghty, the Southern Center for Human Rights attorney, said part of the problem is that courts often order poor parents to pay too much for child support in the first place, increasing the likelihood that they will fall behind on payments.

“One of my former clients worked at the Piggly Wiggly (supermarket) and they were taking 65 percent of her paycheck,” she said. “It left her in a position where there was simply no way that she could survive on the amount that she had left.”

No one can say how many parents are jailed each year for failing to pay child support, because states typically do not track such cases.

But an analysis of U.S. Bureau of Justice statistics in 2002 by the Urban Institute’s Sorensen found that approximately 10,000 men were in jail for non-payment of child support, representing 1.7 percent of the overall U.S. jail population.

Most observers believe that number has risen as a result of the troubled U.S. economy.

In fiscal 2009, the most recent year for which statistics are available, the Child Support Enforcement program saw child support collections decline for the first time in the history of the program, dipping 1.8 percent, the GAO reported in January.

At the same time, payments collected from unemployment insurance benefits nearly tripled, and the number of cases in which children were receiving public assistance also rose.

Military veterans, who often struggle to find work when they leave the service, appear to be particularly at risk.

Lance Hendrix of Adel, Ga., an Army veteran, said he fell behind on child support for his 4-year-old daughter after he left the service and couldn’t find work.

“I was arrested and I went to jail and they asked me all sorts of questions,” said Hendrix, who also is a plaintiff in the Georgia lawsuit. “I was never told I was under arrest. And I was never read my rights. So I did not know what rights I had. Of course, I’ve seen all these movies, but half that isn’t true.”

Not having a lawyer in a civil contempt hearing increases the likelihood that the parent will be jailed, even if he or she is not guilty of “willfully” defying the court’s order, say critics of the policy.

‘Wrongfully imprisoned’
“In the absence of counsel … it appears that the opportunity to raise the defense is often missed, and large numbers of indigent parents are wrongfully imprisoned for failure to meet child support obligations every year,” according to a friend-of-the-court brief filed in the Turner case by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups.

The deck is further stacked against the delinquent parent because the state often acts as the plaintiff, seeking to recover the cost of providing public assistance to the child, Geraghty said.

Officials of Georgia’s Child Support Services agency declined to comment on the state’s child support enforcement policies or the lawsuit.

But Seth Harp, a retired Georgia state senator and former member of the state’s Child Support Guidelines Commission, said the state’s judges use incarceration sparingly.

“The methodology to put someone in jail requires that the person be taken to court before a judge and there they have to be found in willful contempt — someone who actively refuses to seek work or is hiding assets, something like that,” he said. “Judges don’t want to put people in jail. … The whole purpose is to get these people to support their children.”

Harp said he’s seen the tactic work repeatedly in his long career as a family law attorney.

“You can’t get blood out of a turnip, but you can put the turnip in the cooler,” he said. “And in 34 years of doing this, it’s amazing, you put someone in the cooler and the money seems to come.”

Judge Janice M. Rosa, a supervising court judge in New York’s 8th Judicial District and a board member of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, said the system in her state adequately protects non-custodial parents by guaranteeing them a court-appointed lawyer if they cannot afford one and carefully determining that they have the ability to pay.

“No one here is going to jail when a factory closes down and you’re one of hundreds looking for a job,” she said. “… Every state has said that debtors’ prisons are illegal, and you have to give these people a way out. You can only put them in jail if they have money and won’t pay.”

Attempt to assist both parents
Eubanks, the National Child Support Enforcement Association official, said state programs in general are doing a better job in recent years of ensuring that the poor aren’t unfairly locked up by instituting programs to help non-custodial parents improve work, life and parenting skills.

“Five to 10 years ago, the program was pretty much about enforcing support. But now it’s moving to the understanding that if parents are going to support their children, they need assistance,” she said. “Our philosophy is to provide whatever tools we can to both parents to support their children.”

She also said the recent Supreme Court decision prompted the association to conduct training and outreach to ensure that state agencies are aware of the issue and have adequate safeguards in place to prevent indigent parents from being wrongly jailed.

That is no comfort to Miller, the Iraq war veteran who was jailed for three months. He said jailing parents who fall behind on their payments is counterproductive and should be reserved for only the most egregious violators.

“I feel like it’s more unfair to the kids, because now not only do the kids not get any money, nor do they even get to spend time with their fathers once they get locked up,” he said. “The closest you can get is visitation, and who wants their kids to see them behind bars or behind glass.”

******

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

War Is Hell: Child Support Doesn't Have to Be

Is this really child support for a free nation? When soldiers return home after fighting, they are met with incarceration when they arrive on American soil for child support payments that they were unable to make while abroad. Is this justice? You be the judge!

Constitutional Violations and the Patriotic Man

Bradley Law Unfairly Punishes Soldiers

Unemployment: The Plight of Non-Custodial Parents

Arguing About Unemployment and Child Support

Unemployment: Child Support Time Bomb

Constitutional Violations and the Patriotic Man

by E. Manning

Truthfully, there is no such thing as a “little Constitutional violation”, as if a violation can really exist in degrees. The legislative and executive branches of our government have grown rather fond of creating their own rules as they go, creating new rules of order with legislative precedence and simple rationalizations in violation of all laws written previously, even the big ones. The Constitution and successive Amendments are simply ignored in the name of tolerance and judgment, while little unchecked constitutional violations grow to become blight that is considerably more rampant. Laws that are drafted aren’t considered in light of the Constitution, but rather from expedience and the playground of good intentions.

One could suppose that if one wanted to be picky, this country has operated outside the Constitution in a rather complete sense from 1776 to 1865, as the annals of national slavery have proved. Slavery worked out very well for millions in this nation. The problem is that this was accomplished with what effectively became a huge subclass of people. During the 1800s, an outside party of foreign-controlled central bankers worked on and off to put this country in their back pocket in a very unconstitutional way. They succeeded fully with the advent of the Federal Reserve in 1913. Yet, somehow the loss of freedom involved with Federal Reserve doesn’t seem too important or even very apparent. Yet, in both of these cases, a subclass of people is always being victimized by established authority whether you recognize them or not.

Just considering these two areas, the nation has only existed on a Constitutional basis for 48 years. However, that doesn’t include the myriad of other lapses, breaches and encumbrances too multitudinous to mention. The quantity could not be contained on this page. It’s almost like spitting into hurricane winds during Hurricane Katrina and few seem to care as long as they get what they want.

Americans can use a similar Constitutional debate with the Internal Revenue Service, government surveillance of citizens combined with other unwarranted surveillance and the creation of a subclass of citizens in the name of children’s rights and federal welfare. The Constitutional lip service by our presidential candidates is significant, notably by John McCain, but proves to be a mere attempt at placating citizens as the words roll off their tongues. When faced with real unconstitutional issues and provisions in this nation, duck and dodge is the order of the day. The presidential campaigns will discuss only what is considered to be most pressing and popular. Congress performs even more poorly. The approval rating of Congress is a mere 9% and they still remain in power to create more Constitutional subversion.

The two-party system in United States doesn’t really measure anything by the values of the Constitution. Perhaps the ACLU and other fine freedom organizations should suggest removing the Constitution and the Amendments in favor of something more workable so that the nation doesn’t continue as a nation of hypocrites. The real problem has been and continues to be accountability. However, as citizens of this fine country, ultimately and collectively, we are the decision makers whether politicians like the truth or not.

In what is supposed to be the nation’s most respected body, military servants are often cowed on both sides, by the authority of their superiors and the authority of law. A patriotic military man has few rights that he can count on other than those he can find. Economically speaking, the military is still the best way to get out of a life of abject poverty and build a better life. What’s more, if you want to live life on the edge of adventure, it can be argued that there is no better place. The military is one place to truly learn the lessons of life.

Drawing men into the military continues to be a challenge. Many men are not entirely ignorant to the problems in the military. They have learned that patriotism is not rewarded, at least not if they are married. When they join the military, the chances are better than 50% that they will end up divorced, with a huge child support debt and in a jail cell on criminal federal child support charges. While this and other statistics can be contested, established fact dictates that government statistics are often skewed and highly arguable. Since the military is a cross-section of the nation and military marriages are under much higher pressure than average, no less than the national average in this area of statistics is acceptable.

Easy divorce provisions, child support entitlements and the inequities of law chronically mistreat men and patriotic men alike. This is a fact that is often downplayed, notably by feminist society and government sources. A gold-digger can marry a military man for one day to take a nice chunk of support when the divorce is final. The argument can be made that military men are not wealthy. That isn’t the point. The gold-digger can dig for gold at the military till without limit, developing a means of self-support through the bearing of children. While this is reprehensible, even more so in the military, it is not entirely uncommon. What is worse, this is often done when the man is on the other side of the world defending and serving the country. The little woman can do as she pleases while the husband pays in spades. The cash comes from his military pay, but if not, it will come out of his patriotic hide when he returns home via the godless Bradley Amendment. Notable are the proved cases where child support is no longer collected by the military and when the ex-husband returns from the hands of the enemy, terrorists or similar circumstances, he is faced with prison at home for non-payment of child support. The decision of a man or woman to stop paying child support after he or she has returned home is not in the direct scope of this commentary.

The man on duty overseas can be hit with a surprise divorce by the little woman, lose every worldly thing he owns while being victimized by a temporary child support order that has little to do with real income. While any child-support is based on income in the beginning, but the reality of income can change quickly based on a large variety of scenarios. The division of real property while the patriotic man is overseas is entirely dependent on the decision of the judge combined with immediate pull of legal strings. The system never automatically address the payment issues after the initial court order beyond the concerns of collection. The burden “of proof” is on the non-custodial parent, yes even the patriotic man, a direct violation of Constitutional Law within itself. He is guilty until proved innocent. As a result, a man can end up owing more in support than he makes and there isn’t a thing that the patriotic man can do. A patriotic man has little help from authorities as they collude to solve their common “problem”. Getting a support modification can be next to impossible in the States, but a modification isn’t any easier in Afghanistan or Iraq. This is a sad fact, not the stuff of fiction.

The authorities have decided that since the patriotic man volunteered to go into service, he bears full responsibility. This is the government position. The patriotic man won’t get a better shake in a system that is designed by default to work in the favor of women and children only. There is no excuse for non-payment of any kind and rights to see children are virtually non-existent, even though decrees are carefully worded to have you believe otherwise. The patriotic man quickly becomes a felon, often without knowing. Strangely, neither the Feds nor the States have taken any action to alleviate the problem of the patriotic man. It’s all about personal responsibility, even if dad is working behind-the-scenes as a Navy SEAL or held prisoner by terrorist factions and presumed missing.

The Bradley Amendment that cements all of this abuse in place violates the Constitution on so many counts that there is no excuse. Yet, feminists and surrogate lawmakers in the 1990s, with the help of George Bush, Sr. and the Clinton Administration brought the debacle together in grand style in the name of welfare reform. The reform has never worked other than to enlarge the size of big government.

Every taxpayer knows that taxes change based on income that is easily proved. If you are employed, the Internal Revenue Service often knows as much about you as you do. Why shouldn’t child and spousal support adjust in the same way? Yet, because of a court order that often cannot be corrected, millions of men and women have become a subclass society of America. There is no justification for treating a divorced man or woman differently from a married one through the violation of Constitutional Rights. Support that is garnered should be against actual income and resources, not figures from a court order at a previous point in time. The impoverished or sequestered have lost the ability to defend themselves and there is little interest in change. There is no forgiveness for the patriotic man, much less the working men of America. The Congress doesn’t concern itself with emergency legislation for patriotic misfits, much less a subclass of American jurisprudence.

As long as the government system is fat and happy combined with a subdued and appeased class of women, even presidential candidates could care less. All presidential candidates have ignored the plight of oppressed non-custodial parents because of fear. In the meantime, men and women continue to be looted without regard, the patriotic man even more so. Soldiers are even being charged for their own equipment, as the patriotic man continues to burn his candle at both ends in the name of God and country, for the honor of the land of the free and home of the brave. The “pressure” of personal responsibility and sacrifice never ends while the authorities take the profits home and use them as they please.

The Price of Military Service

Most of the reservists called up to serve in the Iraq war have paid a big price: a significant reduction of their wages as they transferred from civilian to military jobs, separation from their loved ones, and of course the risk of battle wounds or death. Regrettably, on their return home, those who are divorced fathers could face another grievous penalty: loss of their children, financial ruin, prosecution as “deadbeat dads,” and even jail.

Reservists’ child-support orders were based on their civilian wages, and when they are called up to active duty, that burden doesn’t decrease. Few can get court modification before they leave, modifications are seldom granted anyway, and even if a father applied for modification before deployment the debt continues to grow until the case is decided much later.

These servicemen fathers cannot get relief when they return because federal law forbids a court to reduce the debt retroactively. Once the arrearage reaches $5,000, the father becomes a felon subject to imprisonment plus the loss of his driver’s and professional licenses and passport.

What is wrong with this picture? Write your lawmaker and tell them what you think. Tips are available on the Write Your Lawmaker page.

Tag Cloud