Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Deadbeat ex-JUDGE

Deadbeat dad ex-judge Reynold Mason, jailed for four months for failing to pay $250,000 in back child support, was freed yesterday after his ex-wife accepted $30,000.

"I am not making any comment whatsoever," said the former Brooklyn Supreme Court justice after hugging his daughter and blinking in the sunlight outside Manhattan Supreme Court.

Mason, who was booted from the Brooklyn bench in 2003, was ordered to surrender his passport and report back to court in six weeks to show efforts at finding a job.

"I don't feel victory. I feel tired," said Tessa Abrams Mason, who fought four years to get her ex to support their three children - ages 17, 15, and 9. "We shouldn't get tired. We shouldn't settle for less. But I settled because I'm desperate."

Mason, who once earned $136,700 a year on the bench, was thrown in jail in May for owing more than $250,000 and failing to appear in court.

He has said he couldn't pay because he only made $68,000 in 2005 and 2006 as a Georgia Realtor and had to declare bankruptcy to survive.

Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Joan Lobis initially ordered Mason to pay $75,000 and commit to a payment plan to leave jail. But Mason refused, saying he could only raise $30,000.


"I've been called all sorts of names. Vindictive! Bitter! Gold digger!" she said. "All I'm doing is protecting my kids.

"If he doesn't show up in court again, I will hunt him down again!" she vowed.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime_file/2007/09/18/2007-09-18_deadbeat_exjudge_reynold_mason_pays_chil.html

I have a feeling there's a little more to this story than is being reported. But I always find it interesting that people can come up with 30k but NO more...where did he get the 30K?

Monday, September 17, 2007

September 17th

Today my dad would have been 72 years old. He passed away 2.5 years ago.
He was a real man, a real dad. He loved us all, he sacrificed to make a life for all of us, without complaint, without strings, he did it because it was his job and his pleasure.

RIP Dad!

Saturday, September 15, 2007

Thought of the day

If you don't accept responsibility for your own actions, then you are forever chained to a position of defense.
Holly Lisle, Fire In The Mist, 1992

More from California

I was told today by the ombudsman unit at Orange County Child Support Service that they regularly review non custodial parents who are in arrears for bank accounts. I seriously doubt this, but that's what was said. They also said they submit each month to the DMV and the DMV sends out a letter that gives the "deadbeat" a 6 month deadline to get it situated with child support before licenses are suspended.

6 months leeway - interesting.

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Phantom Child - NM

Child support fraud case lands in 2 courtrooms


The woman who made-up a baby to collect child support is back in court for her crimes, while the man who paid child support for that made-up baby is in another courtroom suing the DNA testing company.

Viola Trevino didn't say much in court Monday as she pleaded not guilty to 24 criminal charges that ranged from fraud to kidnapping.

The charges stem from her creation of a fake child to collect child support and when she lured a girl into a courtroom, so she could try to fool a judge into believing that she did have a daughter.

Trevino is already locked up on federal charges for lying about her phantom baby on tax forms.

And while she stood before a judge on Monday, in another courtroom sat Steve Barreras, the man forced to pay out $20,000 in child support for Trevino's make-believe baby.

So far Barreras hasn't been reimbursed a dime.

But that could change after a big trial that is now underway.

Barreras is suing Mobile Blood Services. The company was used to collect the sample that would eventually convince the court that the phantom baby was real.

Former employee, Pamela Flores is accused of taking DNA from Barreras' real adult daughter, Eve Barreras, and passing it off as the phantom child's DNA, creating a positive match.

Both Pamela Flores and Eve Barreras are facing fraud charges.

An attorney for Mobile Blood Services said the director of the company is not responsible for the DNA scam.

The trial is expected to last four days.

http://kob.com/article/stories/S190773.shtml?cat=500

Ugh, this is wrong on so many levels. Throw the book at her, and may he recover damages and then some.

Sunday, September 9, 2007

unwilling dads

From http://www.mlive.com/news/saginawnews/index.ssf?/base/news-24/1189333339167600.xml&coll=9

AMY PAYNE
THE SAGINAW NEWS

The case nicknamed "the Roe vs. Wade for Men" is heading to the U.S. Court of Appeals.

Saginaw Township resident Matt Dubay, a 26-year-old computer programmer for Yeo & Yeo Computer Consulting, sued his his former girlfriend, Lauren Wells, in March 2006 to try to avoid paying child support, saying Wells knew he did not want a child and had assured him that she could not get pregnant.

U.S. District Judge David M. Lawson threw out the case in July 2006, calling it "frivolous" and ruled that Dubay must continue to pay $500 a month for child support.

Dubay is appealing the ruling. Oral arguments will begin at 1:30 p.m. Monday before the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.

The Saginaw News could not reach Dubay or Wells for comment Saturday.

Dubay's Southfield-based attorney, Jeffery A. Cojocar, has said he intends to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary.

If a pregnant woman can opt out of motherhood through abortion or adoption, a man who causes an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial burden of fatherhood, Dubay has said, leading the Long Island, N.Y.-based National Center for Men to dub the lawsuit "the Roe vs. Wade for Men," referring to the 1973 case that legalized abortion.

State courts have ruled that society's interest in ensuring that children receive financial support from two parents outweighs any inequity men might face.

The suit, originally filed in U.S. District Court in Bay City, also names Saginaw County Prosecutor Michael D. Thomas and State Attorney Mike Cox as defendants, as Dubay has claimed Thomas and Cox are upholding a paternity law that is unconstitutional because it requires the father to pay child support even if he did not want the child to be born.

Wells, also a Saginaw Township resident, is raising their 2-year-old daughter, Elisabeth, while working and attending school.

The case gathered national media attention and generated vigorous discussion on the Internet. Phil McGraw -- better known as television psychologist Dr. Phil -- hosted Dubay on his nationally syndicated show in April 2006. McGraw said the problem stems from "young people having sex in uncommitted relationships, where these things haven't been discussed in advance."

So, they knew he didn't want kids, but he apparently didn't do anything to protect from that risk? Two words - Condom or Vasectomy! Otherwise, you play you pay!

Saturday, September 8, 2007

WLOX Report

"Ocean Springs resident Tracie Hicks juggles a heavy workload. She works full time and is raising two sons. On Wednesday, she was shocked when she read a letter she received from the Department of Human Services.

"This is a letter that came to me from DHS stating that I owe the state a $25 fee for collection of child support being that I do not draw any type of assistance from the state, such as welfare," Hicks said.

According to the letter, a federal law went into effect in October of last year. The law requires a $25 annual fee be paid to the state when the Department of Human Services has to go after parents who have not paid child support. The parent who recieves child support is charged the fee.

"It's actually charging my child a fee, coming out of my child support. In fact, the bottom of the letter states that failure to pay this fee may result in law enforcement measures which may be a suspension of license, deduction of future support payments," Hicks said.

Gulfport resident Denise Pierce received the same letter.

"I was pretty shocked about it. I called my case worker, and of course, they weren't there. They left messages, and they never returned my calls," Pierce said.

Pierce is also a mother of two. She began collecting child support when her teenage daughter was three years old. Pierce says even to this day, every bit counts.

"It's only $25 to them, it doesn't come out of their pocket. It' comes out of hers, my daughters," Pierce said.

Both Pierce and Hicks agree that the $25 fee should be dropped or billed to the parents who the state must go after for child support.

We contacted the local Department of Human Services and were referred to the office in Jackson. Our calls there were not returned.

By Toni Miles"

I'm a little torn, of course I'd like to not spend $25.00 for a county to get the money from our deadbeat. BUT, I'd rather pay the money and get the assistance in collection, than file and have to do the court maze myself without their help. (At least for now.)

I will also say that although it took me being a major pain in the rear to the Orange County Child Support Services, I do ALWAYS et a call back and the information requested at this point. It wasn't always that way, but I do now always get a response, and when I've asked them to call the parent because of non-payment, they do, and they call me back with a status report. I'll pay the fee if requested.



from http://www.wlox.com/Global/story.asp?S=7046078&nav=6DJI

Sacramento Bee Editorial

"Editorial: An opportunity remains
Legislature should revive child support bill

Published 12:00 am PDT Saturday, September 8, 2007
Story appeared in EDITORIALS section, Page B6

Talk about punishing the poor! When a noncustodial parent in California, usually a father, pays child support for a child who is or was on welfare, only $50 goes to the child. The rest of the child support payment is used to reimburse the government for welfare payouts.

Because so little of the support money actually goes to children, the system discourages fathers from paying child support. And because it turns out to be better financially for their kids, many of these fathers work in the underground economy and slip money under the table to the mothers of their children. Because they get so little of the support payments, the mothers -- and the majority of custodial parents are mothers -- have little incentive to help the government find absent fathers or establish paternity.

But Congress changed the law, giving states authority to pass along more of the support payment absent fathers pay to their children. Under the new rules, the federal government would finance most of the cost. States can pocket the federal funds or pass the money on to poor children.

California still has an opportunity to do the right thing, and it should."


Here's a novel approach. Non Custodial parents need to pay their child support by the first of the month. No more allowing the department of child support services to say - "well of course the court order says it's due by the first, but we don't count it as not paid until the last day of the month." Immediate follow up when it's not paid.

If an employer can't get it right on their payroll system, let them pay a fine. If the non-custodial parent is unemployed, give them cuts in line at EDD to get help in finding a job.

If they are disabled and can't pay for some reason - then let them work it off in trade. There are several agencies contracted by each state for disabled people to get trained and work state jobs.

If they are being obnoxious and just don't want to pay, let them think about that in jail, or while they are performing serious community service.

If a custodial parent is on welfare, let them receive the full amount of any child support paid, and reduce the welfare payout that month to offset it.

Why are things so difficult? Oh yeah, because there are bureaucracies involved.
I think I'll start contacting the California Legislators this week and find out where they stand on child support legislation and why they have the stance they do. I'll report as I hear back from them.

Thursday, September 6, 2007

another email received

I'm Jackie and I have 2 wonderful daughters, 13 & 11. I've been divorced since October 1998. My kids and I live in the Portland, OR area and my ex-husband, their deadbeat dad, is somewhere on the eastern shore of Virginia. He's not worked for several years and hasn't contacted the girls in almost a year now. Last I heard, in the spring, he had to go to court on willful support evasion and was sentenced to 12 months, but the state won't give me any details on if he's actually in custody at this point. His arrears to date is $18,111, he's just over 3 years behind. I don't know how they found him but I'm thankful they did.


Again, if you want the name of your deadbeat published - email me for info

Privatization

I mentioned last week that I thought child support services should be privatized - based on a few observations - number one, the constitutionality of a new type of debtor prison we have instituted - but being a recipient of assistance by the child support department, I am happy to receive that assistance. Our deadbeat would never voluntarily pay, he only pays when the boot of the justice system is seemingly on his throat.

http://haloscan.com/tb/jverner/rw_unique_entry_id_41_page70 had an interesting post on this. "And therein lies the rub. As with any large, bureaucratic organization, efficiency frequently suffers. Private child support collection agencies often do a better job of collecting child support than does the AG's office. In a recent court hearing in Dallas, a judge scolded an assistant AG for allowing a child support obligor to fall tens of thousands of dollars behind. A private agency, the judge observed, would have stayed on top of the matter. In another case, a federal judge remarked that one private child support collection agency "has achieved an undisputed impressive rate of collection."

Private child support collection agencies charge fees, but they tend to produce better results than the AG's office. Why couldn't the AG's office do better? How comfortable would we be with privatizing child support collection altogether? Although the system would probably operate more efficiently, there is something about granting this much government power to a private company that gives me the willies.
"

Here's my take - if a private organization received the matching funds that the states currently do, and operated on grants and other funding options they wouldn't have to charge the custodial parents part of the child support proceeds.

My scoff is, if employees currently working for our lovely county employers, had their paycheck, bonuses, and job actually based on performance you'd see a huge increase in collection of past due amounts. The entire system needs an overhaul from ground up.