Child support was originally intended neither to address the financial needs of the child nor serve as a funding source for the mother. The father's increased child support raises concerns, as its purpose is to cover costs incurred by the county and compensate court contractors. The persistence of this practice raises questions about its constitutionality. Additionally, the combination of business contracts and the collection of funds from a U.S. citizen without due process raises legal issues. If the mother resorts to public assistance, the father may have the right to seek custody, relieving the state of its financial burden. It is worth noting that in 1924, the Social Security Administration created Title 4D, where the mother was originally intended to be on child support for a brief period. The father was granted the right to take custody if he agreed to care for the child, preventing the mother from becoming a long-term burden on the county's resources. For reference, consider Title 4D enacted in 1924.
How is that we can go back retroactively on child support but we can't go back in cases when the man on the hook is not the biological father and get him off child support. This is extremely hypocritical!
My daughter took off and left my granddaughter in 2019 and I raised my granddaughter by myself for 2 years the man my daughter took off with went to prison. So my daughter got off drugs and quit prostitution. So I let my granddaughter go stay with her mom ONLY because I was her daycare. Everything was good up until that man got out of prison he was out one week when he stopped me from seeing or talking to my granddaughter and he is not even her father. He just controls my daughter. This man put drugs in my daughter's arm and put her on the streets to prostitute now he has my 7 year old granddaughter! How is this even legal?
Another suggestion would be a discussion about the the legal challenge to the Federal Child Support guidelines happening in Albert on December 2nd, 2020. The website supportthechallenge.ca/court-action/ has all of the details.
Great concerns raised. Lots of parents are now looking over their shoulders more often thanks to this decision. When does the litigation and adversarial legal battle stop? How does this help children?
But people rarely ever make income Most people make wages Blessing vs. Freestone Mothers are not entitled to child support I'm sure it's the same in Canada
A Vincent order. Means your not a adult you don't have knowledge law and self as a citizen. That you are without knowledge law and self to govern your adult status. And you have just placed yourself as a .. "Minor" ... without knowing.
So this vid has just started said the case wraps around 6g a yr thats 500 a month 125 a week over 18 yrs thats 36k so your telling me this guy was ordered 75percent of his income? Thats crazy and the lady was asked how did he hide it idk tomato tamato who cares lets not dwell on petty details(facts) smh
![Megan Thee Stallion - Mamushi (Remix) [feat. TWICE] [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5c0_u9PsrsQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Child support was originally intended neither to address the financial needs of the child nor serve as a funding source for the mother. The father's increased child support raises concerns, as its purpose is to cover costs incurred by the county and compensate court contractors. The persistence of this practice raises questions about its constitutionality. Additionally, the combination of business contracts and the collection of funds from a U.S. citizen without due process raises legal issues. If the mother resorts to public assistance, the father may have the right to seek custody, relieving the state of its financial burden. It is worth noting that in 1924, the Social Security Administration created Title 4D, where the mother was originally intended to be on child support for a brief period. The father was granted the right to take custody if he agreed to care for the child, preventing the mother from becoming a long-term burden on the county's resources. For reference, consider Title 4D enacted in 1924.
Key phrase "the parties agreed". So it's a contract. Period. Contract law. And parental rights are the way to fight unjust child support
How is that we can go back retroactively on child support but we can't go back in cases when the man on the hook is not the biological father and get him off child support. This is extremely hypocritical!
They need the money
My daughter took off and left my granddaughter in 2019 and I raised my granddaughter by myself for 2 years the man my daughter took off with went to prison. So my daughter got off drugs and quit prostitution. So I let my granddaughter go stay with her mom ONLY because I was her daycare. Everything was good up until that man got out of prison he was out one week when he stopped me from seeing or talking to my granddaughter and he is not even her father. He just controls my daughter. This man put drugs in my daughter's arm and put her on the streets to prostitute now he has my 7 year old granddaughter! How is this even legal?
All three decisions has no standing under no state constitution e or authority given. D.O.J Equal access to justice March 14. 2015 .
Their is no arrearage on child support and no interest on child support the u.s. d.o.j stated this.
That's not true here in Louisiana man these people are making my life a living hell over arrears
Another suggestion would be a discussion about the the legal challenge to the Federal Child Support guidelines happening in Albert on December 2nd, 2020. The website supportthechallenge.ca/court-action/ has all of the details.
Great concerns raised. Lots of parents are now looking over their shoulders more often thanks to this decision. When does the litigation and adversarial legal battle stop? How does this help children?
Fairness is starting with #childrensrights and #sharedparenting
Do you have a video for the colucci vs colucci case?
Thanks for the info 👌
But people rarely ever make income
Most people make wages
Blessing vs. Freestone
Mothers are not entitled to child support
I'm sure it's the same in Canada
A Vincent order. Means your not a adult you don't have knowledge law and self as a citizen. That you are without knowledge law and self to govern your adult status. And you have just placed yourself as a .. "Minor" ... without knowing.
Listen to her again words . As she started.. another factor.... Why the word retroactive is a curse.
So this vid has just started said the case wraps around 6g a yr thats 500 a month 125 a week over 18 yrs thats 36k so your telling me this guy was ordered 75percent of his income? Thats crazy and the lady was asked how did he hide it idk tomato tamato who cares lets not dwell on petty details(facts) smh
😂