LMS Debate rd2. Does not paying child support warrant jail time
Options
Comments
-
Only thing I got from @Sion proposed solution is that he would make a great baby momma (nh)
-
Of course it warrants going to jail...... for the mother !I kid... I kid. My vote's for Sion. It probably costs more to keep somebody in jail than the government pays for in "supporting a child", and they need to reform their outrageous system before thinking about putting people in jail.
My ? said "it probably costs more to keep somebody in jail than the government pays for supporting a child"
I cant even bruh.. -
Might as well have been an all female forum and I had to debate if ? is ok
-
SolemnSauce wrote: »Might as well have been an all female forum and I had to debate if ? is ok
Nah ? you dropped the ball on this one. You didn't even mention the fact that the responsible fathers stay on top of it. You don't automatically get thrown in jail for not paying.
To stay out of jail, go to the contempt of court hearing prepared to show that you have not deliberately disobeyed the court’s order to pay child support. You may have to convince the judge that you’re not as irresponsible as it appears. Preparing evidence is a must.
Your first step is to show why you didn’t pay. If you’ve been out of work, get a sworn statement from your most recent employer stating why you were let go. If you went job searching but had no luck, provide records of when you interviewed or filled out an application and with whom you spoke.
Next, you must explain why you didn’t request a modification hearing when it became evident that you couldn’t meet your support obligation.
Judges rarely put a parent in jail for contempt of court. Usually, it happens only if an income-withholding order and a wage garnishment won’t work. Courts recognize that a jailed parent cannot earn money to make child support payments.
Now that all of that is framed for the responsible parent, you should have focused on the deadbeats who skirt the system in an effort NOT to pay child support. Men who won't work on purpose because they don't want to pay. Men who strictly work under the table, etc. There is a few ways you could have taken this.
-
My vote goes to the Sauce. NH
Stepped into the shoes of a devils advocate and actually opened my eyes to the other side or this ? .
Asked good personal questions, i felt that ? .
I still side with Sions side or course, but my perspective definitely shifted.
Best debate so far. -
SolemnSauce wrote: »Might as well have been an all female forum and I had to debate if ? is ok
Nah ? you dropped the ball on this one. You didn't even mention the fact that the responsible fathers stay on top of it. You don't automatically get thrown in jail for not paying.
To stay out of jail, go to the contempt of court hearing prepared to show that you have not deliberately disobeyed the court’s order to pay child support. You may have to convince the judge that you’re not as irresponsible as it appears. Preparing evidence is a must.
Your first step is to show why you didn’t pay. If you’ve been out of work, get a sworn statement from your most recent employer stating why you were let go. If you went job searching but had no luck, provide records of when you interviewed or filled out an application and with whom you spoke.
Next, you must explain why you didn’t request a modification hearing when it became evident that you couldn’t meet your support obligation.
Judges rarely put a parent in jail for contempt of court. Usually, it happens only if an income-withholding order and a wage garnishment won’t work. Courts recognize that a jailed parent cannot earn money to make child support payments.
Now that all of that is framed for the responsible parent, you should have focused on the deadbeats who skirt the system in an effort NOT to pay child support. Men who won't work on purpose because they don't want to pay. Men who strictly work under the table, etc. There is a few ways you could have taken this.
Didnt have to mention things that you already know are flawed in his argument. I assumed the audience was smart enough to know that. -
I explained the reasoning of the system due to that. Without having to explain aint ? ? to ? who know what aint ? ? do.
-
This is a debate though. You can't assume the audience knows anything. You should assume the audience knows nothing and paint the picture for them.
If we go off assumptions, then Sion wins the debate before it even starts due to the side he was arguing.
You could have won my dude. I just felt you didn't bring the heat I know you could. You were supposed to be the Trump to his Clinton except you didn't do enough. -
This is a debate though. You can't assume the audience knows anything. You should assume the audience knows nothing and paint the picture for them.
If we go off assumptions, then Sion wins the debate before it even starts due to the side he was arguing.
You could have won my dude. I just felt you didn't bring the heat I know you could. You were supposed to be the Trump to his Clinton except you didn't do enough.
Nah truth be told, I didn't read any of his reponses and wrote every reponses while I took my morning dump. So he deserved to win, im just saying the ? aint out Fox me b. -
SolemnSauce wrote: »This is a debate though. You can't assume the audience knows anything. You should assume the audience knows nothing and paint the picture for them.
If we go off assumptions, then Sion wins the debate before it even starts due to the side he was arguing.
You could have won my dude. I just felt you didn't bring the heat I know you could. You were supposed to be the Trump to his Clinton except you didn't do enough.
Nah truth be told, I didn't read any of his reponses and wrote every reponses while I took my morning dump. So he deserved to win, im just saying the ? aint out Fox me b.
Well you just confirmed what I said from the get-go. You didn't put forth maximal effort and it cost you the W. Even so, I still had it neck and neck. -
@Sion Thoughts? Lol
-
-
ShotsSolemnSauce wrote: »This is a debate though. You can't assume the audience knows anything. You should assume the audience knows nothing and paint the picture for them.
If we go off assumptions, then Sion wins the debate before it even starts due to the side he was arguing.
You could have won my dude. I just felt you didn't bring the heat I know you could. You were supposed to be the Trump to his Clinton except you didn't do enough.
Nah truth be told, I didn't read any of his reponses and wrote every reponses while I took my morning dump. So he deserved to win, im just saying the ? aint out Fox me b.
Well you just confirmed what I said from the get-go. You didn't put forth maximal effort and it cost you the W. Even so, I still had it neck and neck.
I see u -
SolemnSauce wrote: »
ShotsSolemnSauce wrote: »This is a debate though. You can't assume the audience knows anything. You should assume the audience knows nothing and paint the picture for them.
If we go off assumptions, then Sion wins the debate before it even starts due to the side he was arguing.
You could have won my dude. I just felt you didn't bring the heat I know you could. You were supposed to be the Trump to his Clinton except you didn't do enough.
Nah truth be told, I didn't read any of his reponses and wrote every reponses while I took my morning dump. So he deserved to win, im just saying the ? aint out Fox me b.
Well you just confirmed what I said from the get-go. You didn't put forth maximal effort and it cost you the W. Even so, I still had it neck and neck.
I see uThis debate was close. It really was.
My vote goes to Sion. I felt Solemnsauce could have taken it had he stepped it up a little bit more.
Nah, no shots. Facts. Sion almost lost this debate... almost.
But who knows, maybe you killed Kai while you were taking a dump as well so this may have very well been your best effort.
-
SolemnSauce wrote: »
ShotsSolemnSauce wrote: »This is a debate though. You can't assume the audience knows anything. You should assume the audience knows nothing and paint the picture for them.
If we go off assumptions, then Sion wins the debate before it even starts due to the side he was arguing.
You could have won my dude. I just felt you didn't bring the heat I know you could. You were supposed to be the Trump to his Clinton except you didn't do enough.
Nah truth be told, I didn't read any of his reponses and wrote every reponses while I took my morning dump. So he deserved to win, im just saying the ? aint out Fox me b.
Well you just confirmed what I said from the get-go. You didn't put forth maximal effort and it cost you the W. Even so, I still had it neck and neck.
I see uThis debate was close. It really was.
My vote goes to Sion. I felt Solemnsauce could have taken it had he stepped it up a little bit more.
Nah, no shots. Facts. Sion almost lost this debate... almost.
But who knows, maybe you killed Kai while you were taking a dump as well so this may have very well been your best effort.
Da nerve -
If allergens did better I woulda voted for him. I saw exactly where he was coming from but Sion did better with it.
-
-
mannnnn..
i cant be gone for a ? second!!! -
THIS SOME ? !!! smmfh
-
BOSSExcellence wrote: »THIS SOME ? !!! smmfh
That ? did it to himself bruh haha Even YOU seen that. -
BOSSExcellence wrote: »THIS SOME ? !!! smmfh
That ? did it to himself bruh haha Even YOU seen that.
lol sometimes i dont even know who u are!!!
u betray me yet again!! :joy: :joy:
I DONT ? RECOGNIZE U!!!!!! -
I blame myself for being the super villain that explains his plan to the good guy before i ? him and leave the room while he's still alive.
-
SolemnSauce wrote: »I blame myself for being the super villain that explains his plan to the good guy before i ? him and leave the room while he's still alive.
u really did tho..
this aint no damn James Bond movie..
THIS 'MURICA! -
I think jail time should be used in extreme cases and treat it like a criminal offense not civil....like if a certain amount is owed ( maybe $10k or more )....a person has purposely not paid a certain amount of time ( a year maybe) ... someone continuously avoiding a court order like someone self employed....but not because they are behind due to hard times ( beacame ill...lost their job ...etc)
Life does happen. But if someone can't contribute ANYTHING to raising Their child ...they need to be destitute...and have proof too.
It's not like the child quits eating or needing clothes or a roof over their head just because you lost your job. The complete responsibility falls on one parent. At some point there has to be a limit.
Also if someone is jailed for not paying theor child support…… There needs to be some kind of work release program that way you can get the parent back working and get the child support they need . Also the amount should be reduced to min wage. At least for the time they are incarcerated.
