Interesting times are in the NOW, mostly the veil of confusion which hangs in the shadows of people, peopling and the inability to grasp the necessary strength in which to behave in a true civilized manner. The Case of Turner v. Rogers addresses the issue of Child Support for the purpose of challenging the Equal Access to appointed legal counsel regarding civil contempt of Court. If one actually did the research and understood how to discover the needle in the hay-stack required, then they would look at cases such as the evolution of the law, which is happening daily, in the here and NOW.
The history of the 6th Amendt. is expanding, as Gideon v. Wainright started the path down the untraveled road. Do the homework regarding how that case precedent change the land-scape of criminal rights to counsel. In fact, how about research the 6th Amendt, in order to truly grasp that the 6th Amendt is the contractual agreement that the United States of America; which means the States Constitutions must comport to the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution unless and until it AFFORDs more protections. The State Courts are Incorporated within the jurisdiction of both the State Constitutions, and the United States Constitutions, in not so many words. Not all Courts Jurisdictional authority is cloaked by the same powers granted to them by the, you guessed it the, United States Constitutions. Some courts are Admiralty Courts, "Maritime Law", some are Equity Courts, meaning Congressional enacted Statutory authority by the United States Constitutions and on a local level the State Constitutions, which grants the State Congress to enact statutory law. Some Courts, such as the Federal Court in the District of Columbia, the Federal Court of Claims is a Congressional Court and their jursidcation is derived from such, talk about power. There are courts with authority for UCC, Uniform Commercial Code and then that wonderful Article I and Article III Courts and its jurisdiction. The COMMON law is COMMON SENSE, of which the United States Constitutions is applicable to.
Look to the history and do the research. Now the United States Supreme Court is the Court of the LAW OF THE LAND, which is governing COMMON LAW! Each case which comes before it, addresses the WHOLE FUCKING SYSTEM! This WOMAN was hungrier than the abusive individuals who abused her for upward of a decade; the system made the beast of the momma bear which they caged, they pushed her back against the wall and gave her no choice other than to rise to the occasion regarding her being forced to stand her grounds, for she understood the abuse she suffered was not her OWN, nor was it her own burden to bear.
The case of Turner v. Rogers addresses the whole fucking system, regarding the Office of Child Support and how it impacts the children of America and the alleged non-custodial parents. The United States Supreme Court states such in their own ORAL argument. The decision of the Court addressed the Due Process issue to the facts that the individual in the case was not afforded procedural or substantive due process protections and stated with clear language the the critical issue was the alleged non-custodial parents "inability" to pay the child support, meaning ability to COMPLY. Not legal advice, do the research.
The Federal Office of Child Support explains this in many of their website documents. They explain such in how the States must proceed regarding "cases" before them. The United States Supreme Court made it extremely CLEAR that the critical issue was "the ability" for compliance and that procedural and substantive safeguards must be afforded. Meaning the Office of Child Support has Constitutional Duties in which it must preform to afford Due Process of LAW. The Courts, which are funded with Title IV-D funds are also required to provide procedural and substantive safeguards and the issue of the applicability of the assistance of counsel in the order reads by individual cases analysis. The Federal Office of Child Support sent the States an Action Transmittal effective, June 18th, 2012, see link below, which states, "The United States Supreme Court held that under those circumstances, the state does not necessarily need to provide counsel to an unrepresented noncustodial parent if the state has “in place alternative procedures that assure a fundamentally fair determination of the critical incarceration-related question, whether the supporting parent is able to comply with the court order.” The Federal Office of Child Support further explains, "This AT is not designed to define for IV-D agencies what is constitutionally required when there is a IV-D attorney or representative participating in the civil contempt hearing that may lead to incarceration. However, using Turner as a guidepost, this AT urges state IV-D agencies to implement procedural safeguards when utilizing contempt procedures to enforce payment of child support and encourages IV-D agencies to individually screen cases prior to initiating or referring any case for civil contempt." The action transmittal speaks to the United States Supreme Court decision of procedural and substantive safegauards MUST be afforded to comport with Due Process.
The court notes, "(“[R]esearch suggests
that many obligors who do not have reported quarterly
wages have relatively limited resources”); Patterson, Civil
Contempt and the Indigent Child Support Obligor: The Silent Return of Debtor’s Prison, 18 Cornell J. L. & Pub. Pol’y
95, 117 (2008). See also, e. g., McBride v. McBride, 334 N. C.
124, 131, n. 4, 431 S. E. 2d 14, 19, n. 4 (1993)"
The United States Supreme Court reads and notes that this issue was not the government representing the government interest but a private party, who was unrepresented: "We do not address civil contempt proceedings where the
underlying child support payment is owed to the State, for
example, for reimbursement of welfare funds paid to the parent with custody. See supra, at 443. Those proceedings
more closely resemble debt-collection proceedings. The
government is likely to have counsel or some other competent representative. Cf. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458,
462–463 (1938) (“[T]he average defendant does not have the
professional legal skill to protect himself when brought before a tribunal with power to take his life or liberty, wherein
the prosecution is presented by experienced and learned
counsel” (emphasis added)). And this kind of proceeding is
not before us. Neither do we address what due process requires in an unusually complex case where a defendant “can
fairly be represented only by a trained advocate.” Gagnon,
411 U. S., at 788; see also Reply Brief for Petitioner 18–20
(not claiming that Turner’s case is especially complex)." The Court does not address the issue of Welfare Title IV-D funds. The Court addresss the issue of private to private and the right of counsel so the "field" is "level"; quoting, "The needs of such families play an
important role in our analysis. Cf. post, at 458–459 (opinion
of Thomas, J.).
Third, as the Solicitor General points out, there is available
a set of “substitute procedural safeguards,” Mathews, 424
U. S., at 335, which, if employed together, can significantly
reduce the risk of an erroneous deprivation of liberty. They
can do so, moreover, without incurring some of the drawbacks inherent in recognizing an automatic right to counsel.
Those safeguards include (1) notice to the defendant that his
“ability to pay” is a critical issue in the contempt proceeding;
(2) the use of a form (or the equivalent) to elicit relevant
financial information; (3) an opportunity at the hearing for the defendant to respond to statements and questions about
his financial status (e. g., those triggered by his responses on
the form); and (4) an express finding by the court that the
defendant has the ability to pay. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 26–27;
Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 23–25. In presenting these alternatives, the Government draws upon considerable experience in helping to manage statutorily mandated
federal-state efforts to enforce child support orders. See
supra, at 444. It does not claim that they are the only possible alternatives, and this Court’s cases suggest, for example,
that sometimes assistance other than purely legal assistance
(here, say, that of a neutral social worker) can prove constitutionally sufficient. Cf. Vitek, 445 U. S., at 499–500 (Powell, J.,
concurring in part) (provision of mental health professional).
But the Government does claim that these alternatives can ensure the “fundamental fairness” of the proceeding even where
the State does not pay for counsel for an indigent defendant."
The "need of the families" per the Court order is clearly pointed out in plain language. In the case of Adams v. Vermont Office of Child Support, the Federal District of Vermont, the State of Vermont, per the legal proceedings claimed that they were "representing" while "not representing" Mr. George, the alleged Custodial parent, who per his own admission was not in "need" of the alleged child support. Bahji, demonstrates that the Office of Child Support did not provide the procedural or substantive safeguards; nor did the Office of Child Support afford access to the Office of Child Support Programs. This case is complex and it is impossible to state, explain, communicate all the issues, the facts to the law on this blog, so do the research.
The untraveled road is the path least taken, and often times for good reason. However, it is time this species goes to another level, that they become the rainmakers, the chain breakers and the programs bend the knee to the United States Constitutions and start to properly function. Child Support was intended to protect the children and adults most vulnerable per public law 93-647, so let the fundamental goal be upheld and stop the abuse.
Turner v. Rogers Federal Office of Child Support Action Transmittal
Department of Justice MEMO
Turner v. Rogers Scotus Order in Supreme Court Records
Public Law 93-647
Trauma of Everyday Life Should be Enough to Wake You Up
Death by a Thousand Papers Cuts
Injunctive Motion Vermont Federal District Court Adams v. Vermont Office of Child Support
No comments:
Post a Comment