Passport Confiscated At American Embassy

[flying]

Confusing issue.....

The OP stated that

she and her lawyer got the judge to base

the child-support on my full-time salary, so

it is 200% of my retirement pension

Something is wrong there.

Perhaps he meant that the child support started while he still had a full time salary.

If so & then he retired he was suppose to or should have contacted the Child Support Enforcement Agency.

They would take his change in income into consideration & changed his support payment to reflect it.

All States do so ALL

But if you do not change it with proof & think <removed> it & leave. That payment will accrue & you will owe it regardless.

They will not back track it. They will reduce it only from the time you file the proper papers.

Sadly many guys let it go & then it comes back.... Most should know in advance that yes they will pull your passport for it.

Best thing he can do now & probably the only thing is to go back & file with the CSE for the reduced payment.

But will in all likelihood still owe the accrued charges. Unless he has some super lawyer. It is not even open for dealing with the wife if she has accepted any State benefits based on low income such as food stamps or health insurance for her & the child. Because at that point it is the State & the CSE coming after you. For what they perceive is money you owe them for support

There is no State that will charge 200% your pension for support.

They do have a min of $50 I believe in most states even if you claim Zero income. But at that point the $50 can accrue

Any State you want you can check online. They all have calculators available like this....

http://www.alllaw.com/calculators/Childsupport/

Edited November 20, 2009 by flying

[NanLaew]

This is a slippery slope. Today child support issues. Tomorrow, an old traffic ticket, an IRS conflict, or some other minor legal confusion back home that you may or may not be guilty of. On this issue, I am dragging out a teabag, this is a case where government is going too far. We like to think we are a free country. Freedom to travel and live abroad is one of those freedoms.

Also remember, the OP was only adding pages.

Those being cheerleaders for draconian passport confiscations, don't come cryin' to us when it happens to you!

It's already the case with the UK's new eBorders policy. A missed court date gets you on an airline watch list and depending on the severity of the case, when you return from your fun holiday in Thailand, you are either apprehended after passport control, before baggage claim (green alert), at passport control (amber alert) or at the door of the plane (red alert).

So pay your bloody speeding & parking tickets or obey the terms of your ASBO!!!

[ccarbaugh]

Hello, this is the OP.

WOW! I just found the blog and I am very

intrigued at how so many are so quick to

jump onto their "high-horse" and label me

as a criminal, deadbeat dad, law breaker, ....

One fella hit the nail one the head with

the story of a guy whose wife tired of him

and used the kids to get the husband to

support her.

Yes, the Amer. Embassy will give me

a temporary letter to return to the U.S.

I have always supported my kids. I just

refuse to support my (adulterous) ex-wife as well.

I am a retired Schoolteacher that was used by a

Japanese goldigger.

Sorry to not live up to your judgement of "Slacker-extrodinaire."

[Huey]

This is FAR from an isolated case, and to my knowledge all the US Embassy's scattered around the world work off the same "confiscate passport" database for varying offenses.

The above mentioned US Embassies do issue emergency "one-way" travel documents to people in situations like this (I know because I just called ACS and asked them about it). That the O/P is now in violation of thai law is unfortunately NOT the problem of the US Embassy, but the O/P's problem. ACS said he should have been well aware of the problem BEFORE surrendering his passport to them for whatever reason.

Because America is run more like a conglomeration of many small countries (BTW; in America we call them "states"), rather than like one BIG country; different states' laws and their ways of enforcing those laws create differing outcomes on a state by state basis. What is not a passport confiscating offense in one state may be in another.

Unfortunately, being a "Dead Beat Dad" tops the list on MANY states as far as targeted enforcement. I just Googled "Dead Beat Dad" lists for the US and see that MANY states maintain a current database of fathers who've failed to meet their financial obligations. It is not uncommon for people who run amok of the child-support system to not be able to renew even their driver's licenses. Wages are garnished; liens are placed on properties, etc. until the debt is satisfied.

I agree with many posters who mention this did not just spring up for the O/P and was a LONG time in coming down the proverbial pike. Certainly he was well aware of any earlier court proceedings outcome, as well as the implications and/or ramifications of simply not paying. Sadly moving to a pissant, shit-hole, third world country like this one doesn't negate a debt or a person's financial obligations in their home country. (Although many people who 'live below the radar' here pretend it does).

It's not rocket science, and the endless rhetoric from the various and sundry marginally learned posters about "is it right, is it wrong" is valueless at this point in time with this particular case. It already it is what it is. Hiding your head in the sand and/or gnashing your teeth at all that is wrong with the US legal system will not change it.

At this point in time the O/P has few if any viable options other than to suck it up and deal with it.

You just disvalidated everything you typed with that ***flame removed--sbk

Your just as bad as any immigrant that comes to America to leech off us then talks shit about how bad it is. Or like some of the Arab shop owners in the States that were cheering while watching the 9/11 drama go down.

Anyway,

That being said. Child support is a beast in American primarly because it goes hand in hand with alimony. AND the rules make it very hard to settle on your own with your ex. For exsample, If you go to your wife and say Ok I will pay you "X" ammount and you go to the support court to get it set up. Any time she feels like it, she can go and raise it again. OR better yet, if you want to pay it off all at once and have her abandon the order for child support. She can take your money and open it right back up.

in 2007 I wanted to pay off the remaining 11 years of my child support at once. My ex was estatic about the idea, but the support court refused and said I HAD to pay every month, because mabye in the future I may be required to pay more or less depending on my financial situation.

Now it's a pain in the but for me because I make my money in large chunks several times throught the year and I pay in 3-4 month increments all at once, before when it was $5000 it was not so bad, but now that it's $2500 I gotta really watch it, I'm sending out a $2500 chunk next month, and I'm lucky because I just checked and I'm at $2400 arreaars.

So it's like even if you are cool with your X the govt can still screw you.

[MrRichard2009]

Sorry but you are a dead beat dad by defenition, and also a slacker for not going to court and changing your payments which would have avoided the whole problem, Fact is you have to owe more than 5,000 dollars, you should change the topic part to ..... ridiculous dead beat dad rationalizes non payment and blames wife

[chuckd]

We are ALL petty criminals. I can assure you every member on this board has broken one petty law or another at some time in their lives, and most probably lots of them. Overly restricting citizens right to travel, and having a passport is a basic requirement for that right, is something that totalitarian countries do. I consider overzealous policies to confiscate passports as an assault on our basic constitutional freedoms.

I just read my copy of the Constitution and Bill of Rights and can't find anywhere that it says citizens have the "right" to a passport.

If it's a "right", why does the passport still belong to the US Government?

[medegen]

Sorry but you are a dead beat dad by definition, and also a slacker for not going to court and changing your payments which would have avoided the whole problem, Fact is you have to owe more than 5,000 dollars, you should change the topic part to ..... ridiculous dead beat dad rationalizes non payment and blames wife

So correct and all these guys use the same excuses. You have to owe a decent amount of unpaid child support for this to even happen. Even if your wife cheated on you. Your children are STILL your RESPONSIBILITY. I'm actually glad to see the U.S. Embassy here doing something about it.

[ccarbaugh]

This is the OP again -

My pension is $900 a month.

She gets $450 and I get $450.

We have 2 tenage kids.

[Jingthing]

We are ALL petty criminals. I can assure you every member on this board has broken one petty law or another at some time in their lives, and most probably lots of them. Overly restricting citizens right to travel, and having a passport is a basic requirement for that right, is something that totalitarian countries do. I consider overzealous policies to confiscate passports as an assault on our basic constitutional freedoms.

I just read my copy of the Constitution and Bill of Rights and can't find anywhere that it says citizens have the "right" to a passport.

If it's a "right", why does the passport still belong to the US Government?

No, we have a right to travel. That is what the interpretations of the constitution have consistently ruled. Of course, no passport, no travel past our borders. Its simple logic.

The Right To Travel

As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress). The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#travel

I am quite certain that within a few years we are going to be allowed to travel to CUBA, and that ridiculous restriction on our freedoms will be lifted.

Now it is time to get out the TEABAGS to make a strong cuppa.

Edited November 20, 2009 by Jingthing

[Huey]

We are ALL petty criminals. I can assure you every member on this board has broken one petty law or another at some time in their lives, and most probably lots of them. Overly restricting citizens right to travel, and having a passport is a basic requirement for that right, is something that totalitarian countries do. I consider overzealous policies to confiscate passports as an assault on our basic constitutional freedoms.

I just read my copy of the Constitution and Bill of Rights and can't find anywhere that it says citizens have the "right" to a passport.

If it's a "right", why does the passport still belong to the US Government?

LOL your kidding right?

They didn't have passports back then and the freedom to travel was never an issue. To them that would have fell under "Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

[maccaroni man]

We are ALL petty criminals. I can assure you every member on this board has broken one petty law or another at some time in their lives, and most probably lots of them. Overly restricting citizens right to travel, and having a passport is a basic requirement for that right, is something that totalitarian countries do. I consider overzealous policies to confiscate passports as an assault on our basic constitutional freedoms.

I just read my copy of the Constitution and Bill of Rights and can't find anywhere that it says citizens have the "right" to a passport.

If it's a "right", why does the passport still belong to the US Government?

LOL your kidding right?

They didn't have passports back then and the freedom to travel was never an issue. To them that would have fell under "Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

when i first read the op situation i was waiting to have someone call bs on him but i am shocked to find that big bro is now going international to get into civil matters. imho that is going way over the top. what next if we have unpaid parking fees they will grab our passports?

[MrRichard2009]

Honestly I don't know why someone would make a post that admits his lack of attention resulting in his problems and then blame his wife and think he would get a lot of sympathy. Lets face it he ignored the repeated attempts the gov makes to collect, chose to go to Thailand instead of court to change his payments, became seriously in arrears, had his passport confiscated, and quite possibly gets detained back in the usa, all because he didnt want to go to court and have the judge change the payments ..... but somehow his greedy wife is at fault LOL

[mizzi39]

This is the OP again -

My pension is $900 a month.

She gets $450 and I get $450.

We have 2 tenage kids.

Well then i guess you just answered your own question OP. Get an "'emergency"" travel document from the embassy go home, and sort things out. Teenagers often require more financial support than younger children. Depending on how much income your EX makes, $225.00 per child per month probably just meets their basic needs. At least in the states you may qualify for subsidized housing, or other social benefits.

$900 dollars a month living in LOS is stretching it a bit. $450 is nearly impossible.

[MrRichard2009]

FYI According to OP he retired in June of 08 ..... (at the latest) So his self induced problem has been going on for 17 months (or more). According to his posts he would owe 22,950 dollars by now if he has in fact been sending the 450 per month. Would anyone charged with collecting not taken some kind of action by now? And since it was only the confiscation of his passport that forced him into action it's pretty obvious he had no intention of ever doing anything different. I just wonder why anyone would prefer to rack up that kind of bill as opposed to take care of it 17 months ago. The only obvious answer is that they didn't expect any problems being in Thailand ....... The world if full of suprises this one will be expensive.

[ccarbaugh]

We are ALL petty criminals. I can assure you every member on this board has broken one petty law or another at some time in their lives, and most probably lots of them. Overly restricting citizens right to travel, and having a passport is a basic requirement for that right, is something that totalitarian countries do. I consider overzealous policies to confiscate passports as an assault on our basic constitutional freedoms.

I just read my copy of the Constitution and Bill of Rights and can't find anywhere that it says citizens have the "right" to a passport.

If it's a "right", why does the passport still belong to the US Government?

LOL your kidding right?

They didn't have passports back then and the freedom to travel was never an issue. To them that would have fell under "Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

when i first read the op situation i was waiting to have someone call bs on him but i am shocked to find that big bro is now going international to get into civil matters. imho that is going way over the top. what next if we have unpaid parking fees they will grab our passports?

It looks as though I have no choice but to return to the "Land of Liberty," and be subject to the ex-wife's, her lawyer's, and the judge's whims. I will gladly accept incarceration there as I am left with only 1/2 of my pension ($450) which, in "the land of the free," isn't enough to eat on. I agree with Thoreau that we have a moral duty to "passively resist" immoral laws.

[Jingthing]

We are ALL petty criminals. I can assure you every member on this board has broken one petty law or another at some time in their lives, and most probably lots of them. Overly restricting citizens right to travel, and having a passport is a basic requirement for that right, is something that totalitarian countries do. I consider overzealous policies to confiscate passports as an assault on our basic constitutional freedoms.

I just read my copy of the Constitution and Bill of Rights and can't find anywhere that it says citizens have the "right" to a passport.

If it's a "right", why does the passport still belong to the US Government?

LOL your kidding right?

They didn't have passports back then and the freedom to travel was never an issue. To them that would have fell under "Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

when i first read the op situation i was waiting to have someone call bs on him but i am shocked to find that big bro is now going international to get into civil matters. imho that is going way over the top. what next if we have unpaid parking fees they will grab our passports?

Exactly. That is exactly my beef. This kind of thing is spreading. Look at the potential law to FORCE foreign banks spy on us and even withhold 30 percent of deposits (or close our accounts instead). American expats may become an endangered species. I am not defending actual deadbeat dads as a class. I don't make any assumptions about the OP's personal case, pro or con. As far as I am concerned, that is irrelevant to this bigger issue. I am advocating against further deterioration of our liberties.

Edited November 20, 2009 by Jingthing

[moe666]

The OP got on the baht bus for Thailand and thought he was home free. There are a few on this thread who do not have a clue about divorce, child support, and custody issues.

Yes sometimes the woman can be a real hard case but I have seen enough crap directed at woman by their ex-husband to make your gut churn.

The OP has no choice but to get back on the baht bus and head back to the good old US and clean his little mess up. When he moved to Thailand he got a good laugh, no money for that bi--h, now the laugh is on him.

JingThing maybe taking ones passport goes to far but how do you get someones attention like the OP, maybe a baseball bat.

[MrRichard2009]

It's not a deterioration of honest law abiding peoples ability to excersize their freedoms, it's simply new enforcement of people who are not in compliance with the laws. I know your not defending just deadbeat dads ..... you are defending (according to you) all tax cheats, and non felons who want to skip out and travel instead. It's to bad we need these kinds of enforcements but due to felons and non felons, tax cheats, deadbeat dads, and the like we do need them. ALL of your complaints are irielevant to law abiding people, except in the sence we may have to fill out some extra forms because of the criminals and tax cheats that need to be caught. If it were not for people breaking the law and not paying taxes on millions of dollars in swiss banks we wouldnt need the laws. It's not an infringment on someone who obeys the law when steps are taken to catch and enforce the lawbreakers.

[Jigger]

Sorry to hear the drama buddy

[hhgz]

"...little stories like this are a timely reminder of how the west has become so PC bureaucratic and fascist."

Fascist? How could you possible construe the story to support your perspective that the US is fascist?

Regardless, I find it unconscionable that the OP would flee the US to avoid paying child support.

[Jingthing]

It's not a deterioration of honest law abiding peoples ability to excersize their freedoms, it's simply new enforcement of people who are not in compliance with the laws. I know your not defending just deadbeat dads ..... you are defending (according to you) all tax cheats, and non felons who want to skip out and travel instead. It's to bad we need these kinds of enforcements but due to felons and non felons, tax cheats, deadbeat dads, and the like we do need them. ALL of your complaints are irielevant to law abiding people, except in the sence we may have to fill out some extra forms because of the criminals and tax cheats that need to be caught. If it were not for people breaking the law and not paying taxes on millions of dollars in swiss banks we wouldnt need the laws. It's not an infringment on someone who obeys the law when steps are taken to catch and enforce the lawbreakers.

Final word to you:

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;

Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist;

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

[MrRichard2009]

Dude ..... you have done nothing but dance around your own topic. Most likely because a case can't really be made as to why it would serve the public good to let tax cheats and petty criminals dodging the law travel freely, or a case as to how if infringes on my rights because a deadbeat dad has his passport taken. I though it was an interesting topic to discuss but I have not heard one comment as to why your belief makes any sense. So I guess it's pointless to talk about it with you anyhow.

[mizzi39]

quote....

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Well at least some TV members are speaking out for kids with fathers skirting their responsibilities. I guess if there wers no laws based on child support then the OP would never have had is passport taken. Unpaid parking tickets, tax dodgers, draft dodgers, etc. are totally separate issues and have nothing to do with a person who fathered 2 kids, and then moves to a foreign country thinking that laws passed in his home country that protect the financial welfare of his children no longer apply to him. Where his "rights" are being violated I just don't see JT.

Edited November 20, 2009 by mizzi39

[ccarbaugh]

I did not flee the U.S to avoid child-support.

I was stationed in Thailand 36 years-ago when I

was in the Air Force. I went to court ($$$$!) to get the

amount "adjusted" to my retirement level

but the judge refused. My wife committed perjury

and succeeded in getting a restraining order so

I was stuck with a 200% payment amount,

prohibited from going near my own home, and

only rarely able to visit my children.

JingJing and Ulysses are "square-on."

MrRichard isn't understanding the reality of the situation.

[phetaroi]

This is a slippery slope. Today child support issues. Tomorrow, an old traffic ticket, an IRS conflict, or some other minor legal confusion back home that you may or may not be guilty of. On this issue, I am dragging out a teabag, this is a case where government is going too far. We like to think we are a free country. Freedom to travel and live abroad is one of those freedoms.

...

I agree with you that it is a slippery slope.

However, in re being a free country...no matter which country...there are always limits.

I believe all people should have some freedom to travel and live abroad, but exactly where is that stated in any American (or for that matter Thai) government document?

[phetaroi]

It looks as though I have no choice but to return to the "Land of Liberty," and be subject to the ex-wife's, her lawyer's, and the judge's whims. I will gladly accept incarceration there as I am left with only 1/2 of my pension ($450) which, in "the land of the free," isn't enough to eat on. I agree with Thoreau that we have a moral duty to "passively resist" immoral laws.

1. I imagine the judge's whims are actually based on state law.

2. While you may agree with Thoreau about having a moral duty to "passively resist" immoral laws, I think in your case you are doing it from a purely practical, not moral, standpoint.

[phetaroi]

Final word to you:

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;

Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist;

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

I think you cheapen Niemoller's words by comparing the plight of someone who didn't pay his legally required child support with the communists, socialists, trade unionists, Jews, and others who were murdered in concentration camps.

[chuckd]

We are ALL petty criminals. I can assure you every member on this board has broken one petty law or another at some time in their lives, and most probably lots of them. Overly restricting citizens right to travel, and having a passport is a basic requirement for that right, is something that totalitarian countries do. I consider overzealous policies to confiscate passports as an assault on our basic constitutional freedoms.

I just read my copy of the Constitution and Bill of Rights and can't find anywhere that it says citizens have the "right" to a passport.

If it's a "right", why does the passport still belong to the US Government?

No, we have a right to travel. That is what the interpretations of the constitution have consistently ruled. Of course, no passport, no travel past our borders. Its simple logic.

The Right To Travel

As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress). The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#travel

I am quite certain that within a few years we are going to be allowed to travel to CUBA, and that ridiculous restriction on our freedoms will be lifted.

Now it is time to get out the TEABAGS to make a strong cuppa.

Better use some extra tea bags. Where in my post did I say a US citizen did not have the right to "travel"?

I said the Constitution and Bill of Rights do not provide "passport" rights. Passport issuance is at the discretion of the US Government and all issued passports remain the property of the US Government.

When you dispute a point, you should understand the point you are disputing.

[MrRichard2009]

So the Judge heard your case gave you a restraining order and set the amount ...... then your passport was confiscated for non compliance ...... makes me look at you in a whole new light ...... thankx for clearing that up for me.

[phetaroi]

I did not flee the U.S to avoid child-support.

I was stationed in Thailand 36 years-ago when I

was in the Air Force. I went to court ($$!) to get the

amount "adjusted" to my retirement level

but the judge refused. My wife committed perjury

and succeeded in getting a restraining order so

I was stuck with a 200% payment amount,

prohibited from going near my own home, and

only rarely able to visit my children.

...

All that you say may be true, but on this forum we only know your side of the argument.