Tons Of Farang In Thailand Are In Trouble

[wolfmanjack]

My brother was bonking his girlfriend with the understanding that she was on the pill. After a couple of years she stopped taking the pill to try and force him to marry her and got pregnant. He was warned that she was the type of person to do this but his little head got in the way of his big head.

Says it all there.

This topic is about parents who don't pay support at all, but too many are hijacking the topic to complain about their and other's ex's. The fact that she was some trailer park trash has absolutely nothing to do with the duty of the father to the kids. Unfortunately there are just too many neanderthals out there that don't get it. If this is the level of intelligence they rise to I completely understand how their ex's got the best of them in court.

Maybe the kids are better off without them.

No this thread is about the USA denying people passports when the STATE COURT is the one that sets the child support rate and the circumstance that many of us posted about applies to reasons why this should not be done by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Maybe you would prefer to be raised by trailer trash that is never home at night implied by your statement instead of a father that dotes on you, but i wouldn't.

[cdnvic]

Maybe you would prefer to be raised by trailer trash that is never home at night implied by your statement instead of a father that dotes on you, but i wouldn't.

Doting fathers don't leave the country and abandon their kids, and they certainly don't ignore their child support responsibilities.

[November Rain]

I can't believe how many members are trying to justify the non-payment of child maintenance. Truly sad.

BTW, for everyone that's used the tired old "Girls will come off the pill & get pregnant to trick you" line. I've heard of this new invention that can stop that happening. They also stop STD's & are cheap & readily available. Aaah, the wonders of modern science - you can also see & feel them, so you know you're protected! They're called condoms! You don't want kids? Wear one!

[wolfmanjack]

Maybe you would prefer to be raised by trailer trash that is never home at night implied by your statement instead of a father that dotes on you, but i wouldn't.

Doting fathers don't leave the country and abandon their kids, and they certainly don't ignore their child support responsibilities.

He did not leave the USA and he did not abandon his kids. BUT he can not afford to pay the back child support ordered by the court. Also he falls behind on the $5,000 per month payments sometimes because his business is an up and down type of thing.

The laws in the state they live in allow her to have some other dead beat come live in the house that he is paying for and eat the food that he is paying for with his $5,000 per month "child support". If this happens and he decides not to pay the wife but to only provide support for his kid then that would be grounds to deny him a passport. IS this fair in your opinion because it isn't in mine.

[Ulysses G.]

No this thread is about the USA denying people passports when the STATE COURT is the one that sets the child support rate and the circumstance that many of us posted about applies to reasons why this should not be done by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Don't get me wrong, I am against fathers not paying child support, but I object more to the way the U.S. Government keeps violating the constitution in order to punish common citizens by breaking the law themselves.

The new rules about prosecuting American citizens for breaking laws while in another country are a farce and some day will be rejected by the Supreme Court, but meanwhile, the fascist pigs who have conned the public into accepting this for now are getting away with putting people in jail for large chunks of their lives unjustly.

[wolfmanjack]

I can't believe how many members are trying to justify the non-payment of child maintenance. Truly sad.

BTW, for everyone that's used the tired old "Girls will come off the pill & get pregnant to trick you" line. I've heard of this new invention that can stop that happening. They also stop STD's & are cheap & readily available. Aaah, the wonders of modern science - you can also see & feel them, so you know you're protected! They're called condoms! You don't want kids? Wear one!

Agreed that he was stupid for having any kind of relations with this girl at all. He was doubly stupid for having sex with her with no condom. Especially since he knew that she already had 2 children by 2 different fathers neither of which she had been married to. He should have to pay for HIS child and is doing so. Should he have to upgrade the living standard of the mother and the kids of other people ?? In my opinion his kid would be better off living with him and being supported by him than with a female that can't keep her pants on.

[kat]

Believe it or not, I am concerned about the implication this law has for civil liberties, and am not entirely sure how I feel about it yet. I am all for deadbeat dads being dealt with effectively, but I am concerned about where this is heading. If this administration can take away your passport for back child support, what is stopping them from taking away you passport for regular debt? Intrusive credit checks are almost everywhere in the States now, including as a prerequisite to get a non-financial job in some places. I found that shocking when I first returned.

H-O-W-E-V-E-R,

If you are making the argument about rights, what right do you have to go skipping off to another country without honoring child support? For those who compare that to a prison, there is little sympathy for you if you cannot see how this subjects the mother of the children to an even longer sentence.

But, at bottom, this is all about dismantling every small piece of social safety nets, like welfare. Since they know it would be an ethical nightmare to pull or cut her welfare benefits, they just start enforcing alimony laws on deadbeat dads. Watch the welfare benefits get adjusted as soon as she starts receiving ailimony.

[a2396]

No this thread is about the USA denying people passports when the STATE COURT is the one that sets the child support rate and the circumstance that many of us posted about applies to reasons why this should not be done by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Don't get me wrong, I am against fathers not paying child support, but I object more to the way the U.S. Government keeps violating the constitution in order to punish common citizens by breaking the law themselves.

The new rules about prosecuting American citizens for breaking laws while in another country are a farce and some day will be rejected by the Supreme Court, but meanwhile, the fascist pigs who have conned the public into accepting this for now are getting away with putting people in jail for large chunks of their lives unjustly.

EXACTLY!! The justice system in U.S. is out of kilter in many areas. They have time to bust lap dancers in strip clubs, but the drug dealing and "gang banging" goes on & on unabated in many places.

[Ulysses G.]

If you are making the argument about rights, what right do you have to go skipping off to another country without honoring child support?

I am making the argument about rights and I don't owe any money for child support.

More and more the law is about controlling citizens - using ANY means - legal or illegal - rather than providing justice!

[kat]

ok,well, as I said, I haven't made up my mind yet but I see at least two very important sides.

Since you feel so strongly about one, how do you suggest the government goes about enforcing the law on deadbeat dads that leave the Country?

*I ask this question because you talk about rights and justice, but that includes everyone, not just your individual rights. Civil rights are also about what you cannot do if it impinges on the rights, safety and liberty of others.

Edited August 24, 2007 by kat

[JonnieB]

Just so glad to be gay...avoids all these breeder issues Leaves one with a high-income leisurely lifestyle too...maybe you alls should look into it

[Ulysses G.]

Since you feel so strongly about one, how do you suggest the government goes about enforcing the law on deadbeat dads that leave the Country?

It is not something that I've thought a lot about because it doesn't apply to me, but I do think that it is better to do nothing at all, than for the Government to violate the spirit of the law themselves in order to make sure that they are seen as all powerful, instead of just.

[menostay]

The truth of the matter is there is truth on both sides of the matter . Our forefathers (generally) solved problems by applying principles. Governments earthwide have replaced principles with laws.............what a mess we have made. What would the problem be if a man accepted what all of HIS forefathers did------look after your offspring so they may survive? None of course. But as we have (generally) lost our ability to accept responsibility, lost our natural affection, we get law that makes an ass out of itself.

Principles worked for principled people..... fathers, mothers, children and even governing agencies. Principled people recognized there are exceptions, right? Law does not allow the use of common sense or principles, right? Many men pay a high price for such blind, unprincipled law enforcement.

[kat]

"It is not something that I've thought a lot about because it doesn't apply to me, but I do think that it is better to do nothing at all, than for the Government to violate the spirit of the law themselves in order to make sure that they are seen as all powerful, instead of just. mad."

Well, others could easily argue that the spirit of the law has already been broken, when deadbeat fathers abscond from their child payments with impunity.

One could also argue that unprincipled people brought about stupid ass laws, but also that laws help shape principled people. Take a look at lawless societies as an example.

Edited August 24, 2007 by kat

[Ulysses G.]

Well, others could easily argue that the spirit of the law has already been broken, when deadbeat fathers abscond from their child payments with impunity.

So, you can justify doing ANYTHING to keep them from getting away with it?

I guess if someone has a second passport or changes citizenship, we should send a C.I.A. agent over to another country to kill him to make sure that he doesn't get away with anything?

[wolfmanjack]

ok,well, as I said, I haven't made up my mind yet but I see at least two very important sides.

Since you feel so strongly about one, how do you suggest the government goes about enforcing the law on deadbeat dads that leave the Country?

*I ask this question because you talk about rights and justice, but that includes everyone, not just your individual rights. Civil rights are also about what you cannot do if it impinges on the rights, safety and liberty of others.

Personally I think the main point about the law here is that in the USA the divorce and child support laws are governed by the states. Every state has their own laws pertaining to these cases. The passport is issued by the USA Federal Government and the Federal Government should not be involved in enforcing State Laws.

[kat]

Well, others could easily argue that the spirit of the law has already been broken, when deadbeat fathers abscond from their child payments with impunity.

So, you can justify doing ANYTHING to keep them from getting away with it?

I guess if someone has a second passport or changes citizenship, we should send a C.I.A. agent over to another country to kill him to make sure that he doesn't get away with anything?

Now, let's see, did I actually say that ... hmm, I think not. I think you are exaggerating my position, because you don't have any answers except that the law is unfair. Ok. We've established that there is unfairness on both sides, but especially a dead beat dad who skips out on ALL responsibility, despite it being against the law. In an imperfect world of imperfect laws, exactly how do we enforce this imperfect breach of rights - the mother's rights?

Your brilliant response ...... nothing, and life is so unfair, waaaaah.

I'm merely asking the questions - how?

[kat]

ok,well, as I said, I haven't made up my mind yet but I see at least two very important sides.

Since you feel so strongly about one, how do you suggest the government goes about enforcing the law on deadbeat dads that leave the Country?

*I ask this question because you talk about rights and justice, but that includes everyone, not just your individual rights. Civil rights are also about what you cannot do if it impinges on the rights, safety and liberty of others.

Personally I think the main point about the law here is that in the USA the divorce and child support laws are governed by the states. Every state has their own laws pertaining to these cases. The passport is issued by the USA Federal Government and the Federal Government should not be involved in enforcing State Laws.

ok, yes that's a good point, and a technical one. There are plenty of cases where federal law will supercede states, and federal agents get involved. If a deadbeat dad skips the Country, he effectively nulls the position of states in terms of enforcement.

[Ulysses G.]

Well, others could easily argue that the spirit of the law has already been broken, when deadbeat fathers abscond from their child payments with impunity.

So, you can justify doing ANYTHING to keep them from getting away with it?

I guess if someone has a second passport or changes citizenship, we should send a C.I.A. agent over to another country to kill him to make sure that he doesn't get away with anything?

Now, let's see, did I actually say that ?

I'm merely asking the questions - how?

Your question - how? - has little to do with what we are discussing, and course, I exaggerated - in order to make a point - however you did imply that it OK to violate the law or the constititution in order to stop someone from breaking a law. If the Government ignores its own principles, why shouldn't we?

Edited August 24, 2007 by Ulysses G.

[kat]

Really? I thought the enforcement of balanced laws had everything to do with the topic. It doesn't for you because you are only concerned with the principle of the law, even if that principle does nothing to protect the real balance and fairness of everyone's civil liberties.

You skip out on the hard part of the question. It's always easy to pass judgments when you aren't doing anything about it.

*In terms of the law violating the Constitution, well I don't know yet; I'll have to seek perspectives on that from various family law attorneys that I know.

However, just out of hand, you really can make the case of rights for both sides and still use the Constitution to back it up.

Edited August 24, 2007 by kat

[TAWP]

"It is not something that I've thought a lot about because it doesn't apply to me, but I do think that it is better to do nothing at all, than for the Government to violate the spirit of the law themselves in order to make sure that they are seen as all powerful, instead of just. mad."

Well, others could easily argue that the spirit of the law has already been broken, when deadbeat fathers abscond from their child payments with impunity.

No, the decision to create a law that parents should provide for their children is based on peoples need to dictate for others how they should live their lives.

The principle that normal people take responsibility has been replaced with the government passing a law that dictates that they should. It's not the spirit of the law that was broken with the parent running off, it was the spirit of government to only protect the rights of individuals that was broken.

[kat]

There were laws regarding child support before this current law, which we are discussing now.

Well, yes, laws are passed by governments to enforce and dictate - as you will - legal and illegal acts. It is an illegal act to abscond from support of your children. The former law was not effectively enforced upon the deadbeat's leaving the country, and very often within the country as well.

Relying on the goodwill of people's principles has obviously not worked. Not enforcing the law is no longer, and should have never been an option.

So, how then?

Edited August 24, 2007 by kat

[TAWP]

There is no universal 'right' to be supported economically by both your parents (or the remaining parent to recieve support).

As such I don't believe it's the governments duty to enact or enforce any laws regarding it.

Anything else is just derivates of a flawed system.

[Ulysses G.]

Really? I thought the enforcement of balanced laws had everything to do with the topic. It doesn't for you because you are only concerned with the principle of the law, even if that principle does nothing to protect the real balance and fairness of everyone's civil liberties.

What you are saying is that the end justifies the means.

There are a lot of Fascists and dictators throughout history who have used the same excuse.

[Carmine6]

For reference, this law is not a new law. It's been around since 1999 and various forms back to 1981. Read this background and there's a bit more to discuss here:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/AT/1999/at-9914.htm

OCSE-AT-99-14

TO: STATE AGENCIES ADMINISTERING CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PLANS APPROVED UNDER TITLE IV-D OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT AND OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS.

SUBJECT: Collection of delinquent child support obligations by the U.S. Department of Treasury's Financial Management Service (FMS) through offsetting Federal income tax refunds and other Federal payments through administrative offset. Enforcement of delinquent child support obligations through the denial of U.S. passports by the Secretary of State.

ISSUED: December 2, 1999

BACKGROUND: In 1981, the Federal income tax refund offset program was enacted into law (see section 2331, P.L. 97-35). Initially, this program was restricted to public assistance cases and enforced delinquent child support obligations by intercepting part or all of the obligor's Federal income tax refund. This program was expanded in 1984 to allow for its use in nonassistance cases.

The Debt Collection Improvement Act (DCIA) of 1996, P.L. 104-134, was enacted into law on April 26, 1996. The primary purpose of the DCIA is to increase the collection of non-tax debt owed to the Federal Government. The DCIA contains important provisions for use in the collection of past-due child support obligations.

The DCIA was further strengthened by Executive Order 13019 - Supporting Families: Collecting Delinquent Child Support Obligations, dated September 26, 1998. This executive order allows the Secretary of Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to develop and implement procedures necessary to collect child support debts by administrative offsets. These procedures appear at 31 CFR 285.1 and 285.3.

Section 370 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 (P.L. 104-193), amended the Social Security Act (the Act) by adding subsection 452(k). This subsection became effective October 1, 1997 and provides for the denial, revocation, and restriction of U.S. passports. However, currently the State Department is only denying passports at the time of application.

This Action Transmittal applies to those cases in which the State has an assignment of support rights under section 408(a)(3) or 471(a)(17) of the Act; is enforcing the child support obligation pursuant to section 454(6) of the Act; or has an assignment of medical support rights under section 1912(a)(1)(A) of the Act.

[cdnvic]

There is no universal 'right' to be supported economically by both your parents (or the remaining parent to recieve support).

As such I don't believe it's the governments duty to enact or enforce any laws regarding it.

Anything else is just derivates of a flawed system.

If life actually worked according to your fantasy system retail clerks would be replaced en-masse by honesty boxes at the door to every shop. Unfortunately in the real world people take advantage of such situations and make necessary the governments you loath so much.

[kat]

Thanks for that informative, post Carmine.

There is no universal 'right' to be supported economically by both your parents (or the remaining parent to recieve support).

As such I don't believe it's the governments duty to enact or enforce any laws regarding it.

Anything else is just derivates of a flawed system.

I don't know about universal rights, but it is certainly a parent's right in the United States to seek child support from the absconding parent.

Really? I thought the enforcement of balanced laws had everything to do with the topic. It doesn't for you because you are only concerned with the principle of the law, even if that principle does nothing to protect the real balance and fairness of everyone's civil liberties.

What you are saying is that the end justifies the means.

There are a lot of Fascists and dictators throughout history who have used the same excuse.

No, I'm not saying that the end justifies the means, I'm saying the means is simply a measure of enforcement. I'm also exploring whether passport denial is an appropriate means given the unique situation of parents who permanently skip out on child support and/or visitation rights.

I'm really trying to figure out if there are any other choices besides this current law, and besides doing nothing.

[TAWP]

cdnvic>> I'm going to assume you are suffering from a reading disorder to assume that property rights would be abolished under a system of my choice.

Edited August 24, 2007 by TAWP

[kat]

What he is illustrating is the absurd scenario of a society or government without laws, only "principles."

I find it amazing that you fully support property rights, but not the right of parents to seek child support.

[cdnvic]

cdnvic>> I'm going to assume you are suffering from a reading disorder to assume that property rights would be abolished under a system of my choice.

In such a case the owner would expect items to leave the store, the only crime would be not leaving the money behind. Absconding from the shop with money that should rightfully go to the shopkeeper is no different than absconding from the country with money that should rightfully go to your child. In each case there are laws enacted by the government to protect the rights of both the shop owner and the child.