Russell Arrested 3/17/08

[Raineyrocks]

Did I read somewhere, (I can't find it now), that Russell was court ordered to pay $1052.00 a month?  If I did read that somewhere that amount is absurd!   

That's one of the many problems going through the "system" or having them go after you.  How the heck is somebody, anybody except maybe a doctor or lawyer suppose to dish out that kind of $$ every month and still live?  The system doesn't care and that is truly pathetic!

[J’raxis 270145]

You expect the mother of his children to support them while Russell walks away from his responsibility? This has nothing to do with the state. It is not a political issue. The father of children and/or adopted children has a moral responsibility to take care of them until adulthood.

It involves the State and becomes political because Russell is being held in jail (that'd be by the State) over this situation.

When you marry and adopt children and have a child in the state of California you consent to their rules and are bound by their laws, that is an admission of consent. What Russell is doing is not an act of civil disobedience nor does it have anything to do with libertarian political philosophy. It is a matter of child neglect. No more, no less.

"Nothing to do with the state." Try not to be so obviously hypocritical, eh?

[coffeeseven]

I just don't support dressed up alimony.

Child support and alimony are two different things.

I agree to agree with you about the tax issue. That's as far as it goes. It's still alimony it just has a cap. My ex had me buying the clothes, paying for medical/dental, life insurance and school supplies because it was "my duty". I paid my childamony like a good little slave. I'm all done feeling guilty for not paying. It's the dirty end of the stick for non-custodial parents. We don't have but one rabbit in the hat - Non compliance.

Did I read somewhere, (I can't find it now), that Russell was court ordered to pay $1052.00 a month?  If I did read that somewhere that amount is absurd!

Unbelievable right? I figured Russell was hiding the Ph.D behind his name. 

[Caleb]

I thought alimony was a thing of the past? And to be honest, I've never understood the concept. Spousal support? If the man supports the woman, but then the woman also has an obligation to support the man (equal rights, we must be fair here), then it seems that those two duties would even out. Alimony would only make sense in a divorce where fault was clearly established, but ... didn't states go to "no fault" divorces some time ago?

The more horror stories I hear, the more glad I am that my divorce went so smoothly. Alicia and I just sort of agreed to split everything that was left over, (which wasn't much, to be honest,) and go our separate ways. We did the paperwork ourselves and the judge rubberstamped it in a session that took up about 5 minutes of my time. (It took Alicia a little longer, cause she had to drive from Louisville, Kentucky to Greenwood Indiana, about 100 miles.)

[KBCraig]

This thread makes me really sad to be a Free Stater and associate with you all given your treatment of Mindy aka Russell's ex wife.

"(O)ur treatment of Mindy"? The one who has the power to forgive the debt that would free Russell? Who has been welcomed here, and has even seen her karma go to +30? Who, with a couple of exceptions, has been engaged quite civilly?

If Mindy's treatment here makes you sad to be a Free Stater, you have some very high standards. I'm not sure any of us could meet them. Good luck finding a community that can.

[margomaps]

Did I read somewhere, (I can't find it now), that Russell was court ordered to pay $1052.00 a month?  If I did read that somewhere that amount is absurd!

Unbelievable right? I figured Russell was hiding the Ph.D behind his name. 

I can't tell if you guys are being serious or not.  How is $12,600/year to support 3 (at least I think that's the right number) children 'absurd?'  Over the past 6 years or so, the "poverty threshold" for a family of 4 has been considered to be between around $17k-$21k/year in the US.  And I'm sure the cost of living in CA is such that the threshold is substantially higher.  So that $12,600/year sounds like approximately 1/2 of what's required to sustain 3 children at the poverty threshold.  Having a parent provide this paltry amount is 'absurd?'  Suppose Russell and Mindy had never divorced: would $12,600 still be an 'absurd' amount of money for Russell to be spending to support his children?  Something does not compute here...

Note: this has nothing whatsoever to do with taking Mindy's side, or the state's side, in this matter.  It is simply my incredulity at your incredulity regarding the $12,600/year.

[Lactivist]

Spousal support? If the man supports the woman, but then the woman also has an obligation to support the man (equal rights, we must be fair here), then it seems that those two duties would even out.

Just want to point out that alimony goes both ways depending on which spouse makes more money.  Men receive alimony too, if the woman made more.  Not that I really agree with alimony....it seems you should be self sufficient, and not expect to live in the future as "you are accustomed to living".

[kola]

i would love to see the % of women who pay alimony and what the average monthly payout is.

i would imagine very few women pay. and if so, i bet pay nothing compared to what men dish out.

kola

[coffeeseven]

Did I read somewhere, (I can't find it now), that Russell was court ordered to pay $1052.00 a month?  If I did read that somewhere that amount is absurd!

Unbelievable right? I figured Russell was hiding the Ph.D behind his name. 

I can't tell if you guys are being serious or not.  How is $12,600/year to support 3 (at least I think that's the right number) children 'absurd?'  Over the past 6 years or so, the "poverty threshold" for a family of 4 has been considered to be between around $17k-$21k/year in the US.  And I'm sure the cost of living in CA is such that the threshold is substantially higher.  So that $12,600/year sounds like approximately 1/2 of what's required to sustain 3 children at the poverty threshold.  Having a parent provide this paltry amount is 'absurd?'  Suppose Russell and Mindy had never divorced: would $12,600 still be an 'absurd' amount of money for Russell to be spending to support his children?  Something does not compute here...

Note: this has nothing whatsoever to do with taking Mindy's side, or the state's side, in this matter.  It is simply my incredulity at your incredulity regarding the $12,600/year.

Because the lack of that $12,600 a year would leave the stack of bills at my left elbow unpaid. This government backed extortion has got to stop. It's set up to fail so don't hate on me for pointing it out.

I don't mind giving realistic numbers but if I don't believe I should give half of what I own at the date of divorce, and half of my paycheck(s) for 18 years, all of the above mentioned (duty) clothes, medical, orthodontia etc. so my ex doesn't have to spend money and then pay for college too? If I decide I'm tired of being poor and take 2nd or 3rd job my ex takes me back to court to get half of that too.  Working 65+ hours a week for $300 bucks MOL? I'd gladly wade the Rio Grande rather than go through that government gate.

[FreelanceFreedomFighter]

I agree to agree with you about the tax issue. That's as far as it goes. It's still alimony it just has a cap.

I can understand your feelings, but calling "child support" "alimony" by a different name doesn't help your case at all.

My ex had me buying the clothes,

You weren't required to... that is what "child support" is supposedly for.

paying for medical/dental,

The person who has the medical/dental coverage (almost always family coverage through work) is the one who's expected to maintain that coverage. I don't see how providing such coverage for one's child(ren) should be such a big deal. Keeping the ex-spouse on the family coverage incurs no additional cost.

life insurance

Although in rare cases it does occur, in general, the only requirement for maintaining a life insurance policy is that any policy that already exists is to be kept in force for the benefit of the child(ren) in the event that something happens to the parent.

and school supplies

Again, this is supposed to be covered by "child support"...

because it was "my duty".

I still believe that it actually is our duty and responsibility to support our child(ren).

I paid my childamony like a good little slave.

What part of supporting your child(ren) made you a "slave"? (Nevermind...  ) We each have a responsibility and duty to support our child(ren), if for no other reason than preventing our offspring from becoming a burden to be borne by others who are not responsible for bringing them into the world. It seems completely contrary to any libertarian ideal or any "objectivist" ideal to take the action, make the baby, and then actually believe that it is fine to simply walk away from that responsibility.

I'm all done feeling guilty for not paying.

(my emphasis added)

So... there it is. You've felt guilty because you shirked your responsibility to your child(ren). Thanks for allowing your agenda to show. 

it's the dirty end of the stick for noncustodial parents.

You will probably be surprised to know that I agree with this completely.

We don't have but one rabbit in the hat - Non compliance.

(First, let me say that I am not for the "state" getting involved in these matters. They should be and are better settled in private negotiation. Also, personally, I'm for abolishing the "state" as it exists. I used to be a minarchist, but then I ran out of excuses.  ) However...

Under the current system, I would like to see provisions that enforce visitation and if there is no visitation, there is no child support. If the custodial parent does not follow the visitation schedule, then the custodial parent is saying that they do not want or need any support... and so be it. (If the noncustodial parent doesn't take advantage of visitation, that shouldn't absolve the support obligation. In the case of prevented visitation, see below.) In addition, all abuse allegations must be supported and proven... and no restraining orders are given on hearsay. Also, all financial calculations for child support payments should be based on actual, real amounts taken from income. In cases where one of the parents can not work or must reduce their income capabilities because of provable injury or economic situation with their employment or needed change of employment, the income used for support should be the current income. However, in cases where either parent refuses to work or hides income, then why shouldn't that parent be assessed, at least to some degree, based on their known capability for making a higher income... You are quite correct that the current system strongly favors the custodial parent, in effect giving that parent all the "rights" to control and manipulate the child(ren) and to make all manner of enforcible demands on the noncustodial parent, while the noncustodial parent is often kept from the child(ren), punished for correcting the "manipulations" of the custodial parent (I.E.: telling the child(ren) their side of the story... in court punished for "putting the children in the middle", even though, for some strange reason, custodial parents are allowed to "slide" on this all the time...), and is denied any enforcible visitation and interaction with their child(ren).

Let me state, unequivocally, that while I strongly believe that each parent has a responsibility and duty for the support of their unemancipated child(ren), it is obvious that the system that is currently in place is biased (not against the father or the mother) against the noncustodial parent... AND that the current system is rife with corruption by well-connected sleazy lawyers who have close ties to questionable (at best) judges and easily manipulated (read "bought") Guardian ad Litems appointed "for the child(ren)".

Did I read somewhere, (I can't find it now), that Russell was court ordered to pay $1052.00 a month?  If I did read that somewhere that amount is absurd!

According to the records posted by karenijohnson:
12/12/2000: EX-PARTE HEARING IS HELD.
    TEMPORARY ORDERS ARE MADE ON PETITIONER'S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FILED THIS DATE.
    RUSSELL M KANNING IS ORDERED TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1052.00 EACH MONTH.
    PAYABLE ONE-HALF ON THE 1ST AND ONE-HALF ON THE 15TH DAYS OF EACH MONTH, COMMENCING 12/12/00 AND CONTINUING UNTIL EACH CHILD DIES, MARRIES, BECOMES EMANCIPATED, REACHES THE AGE OF 18 OR REACHES THE AGE OF 19 AND IS A FULL-TIME HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT, OR UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT, WHICHEVER FIRST OCCURS.

However, about a month later:
01/09/2001: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
    AMENDED INCOME & EXPENSE DEC OF MINDY KANNING FILED.
    PARTIES ADVISED RE:COMMISSIONER/ATTORNEY PRO TEM; NO OBJECTION RAISED. FAILURE TO OBJECT IS DEEMED A STIPULATION TO COMMISSIONER/ATTORNEY PRO TEM SITTING AS JUDGE PRO TEM.
    STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: APPOINTMENT OF JUDGE PRO TEM FILED.
    RUSSELL M KANNING IS ORDERED TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1260.00 EACH MONTH.
    PAYABLE ONE-HALF ON THE 1ST AND ONE-HALF ON THE 15TH DAYS OF EACH MONTH, COMMENCING 01/15/01 AND CONTINUING UNTIL EACH CHILD DIES, MARRIES, BECOMES EMANCIPATED, REACHES THE AGE OF 18 OR REACHES THE AGE OF 19 AND IS A FULL-TIME HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT, OR UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT, WHICHEVER FIRST OCCURS.

I can't tell if you guys are being serious or not.  How is $12,600/year to support 3 (at least I think that's the right number) children 'absurd?' {snippage of comments regarding poverty level and CA cost of living} Something does not compute here...

Note: this has nothing whatsoever to do with taking Mindy's side, or the state's side, in this matter.  It is simply my incredulity at your incredulity regarding the $12,600/year.

As shown, the amount isn't $12,600/yr, but is $15,120/yr... which comes to ~$111k for the duration from 12/12/2000 to the present. (I only point that out because it was previously mentioned by RussellsEx that he owes $139k... I don't know where that math comes from, but it seems off by $28k by my math. Since that's a 25% increase, it certainly seems important to point out and question.) I've been accused of taking RussellsEx's side, so let me reiterate that I don't know either of them and I don't "have a horse in this race". (I'm not claiming that I don't have an "agenda"... just that taking either or the other "side" isn't it.  )

[coffeeseven]

FreeLance I mean you no disrespect but you are really out of touch with reality. I call it alimony because if it quacks like a duck.........And yes I did have to buy the clothes because I was told it was my duty. Yes it does incur additional cost because I have to pay for the insurance AND all of the prescriptions AND make sure and take time off from my 1/2 job to take the kids to the doctor. Yes I did feel guilty for a while. My ex and the state's attorney saw to that but then I stepped back and looked at the bigger picture.

This is not a Libertarian argument. This is not an argument about the theory of freedom. This is an argument about equity. On a flow chart it looks like this: My ex gets her job, child support, all of the kids' bills paid, food stamps and tax breaks. I get 1/2 a job, a mountain of bills and the threat of jail.

[jaqeboy]

This thread makes me really sad to be a Free Stater and associate with you all given your treatment of Mindy aka Russell's ex wife.

"(O)ur treatment of Mindy"? The one who has the power to forgive the debt that would free Russell? Who has been welcomed here, and has even seen her karma go to +30? Who, with a couple of exceptions, has been engaged quite civilly?

I believe you are propagating the fallacy that "Mindy has the power to forgive the debt" which I have seen numerous people repeatedly make on this thread. It is my understanding that the Court's orders require the payments to be made to the (in N.H.) Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Child Support Services, or similar agency in California. In other words, the obligation to the children, via the custodial parent has been "statized" and is no longer a direct debt to the children via the other parent. Just relaying the facts as I understand them to hopefully clarify thinking that is way afar of the mark. The state then is just the grinding, slow, but steady, collections mechanism with teeth (jail & various other sanctions). This would explain why Russellsex repeatedly states that it is out of her control. She is largely correct, like it or not.

[FreelanceFreedomFighter]

Because the lack of that $12,600 a year would leave the stack of bills at my left elbow unpaid. This government backed extortion has got to stop. It's set up to fail so don't hate on me for pointing it out.

I don't mind giving realistic numbers but if I don't believe I should give half of what I own at the date of divorce, and half of my paycheck(s) for 18 years, all of the above mentioned (duty) clothes, medical, orthodontia etc. so my ex doesn't have to spend money and then pay for college too? If I decide I'm tired of being poor and take 2nd or 3rd job my ex takes me back to court to get half of that too.  Working 65+ hours a week for $300 bucks MOL? I'd gladly wade the Rio Grande rather than go through that government gate.

I did some checking. Many states follow the "Federal Guidelines" which aren't nearly as bad as you've made out. Not all do and CA is one of those that doesn't. In CA, after going through the hoops of their formula, basically if the custodial parent isn't working and the noncustodial parent isn't seeing the children (has zero custody time, not even weekends), and there are more than one child, then you are totally correct. The noncustodial parent gets hit for half of their net income. In CA, the basic support for a single child with a non-working custodial parent, is 0.25 of the noncustodial parent's Net Income (Income after fed & state income taxes, health ins payment, FICA/Medicare, Union Dues and Retirement contribution). For more than one child, CA multiplies the Child Support amount by:

  2 children               1.6
  3 children               2
  4 children               2.3
  5 children               2.5
  6 children               2.625
  7 children               2.75
  8 children               2.813
  9 children               2.844
10 children               2.86

So, the Child Support judgment is doubled for 3 children... (Which makes it 2 * 0.25 * net income, which is 0.5 * net income just as you said.) So, a $1260/month judgment in CA for 3 children and a non-working custodial parent means that the NET income of the noncustodial parent is $2520/month. (A month being 4.3 weeks, that's ~$586/wk of which ~$293/wk goes away... Leaving ~$293/wk for the noncustodial parent to live on.) Some will argue that is reasonable... I won't. That formula seems to me to be very flawed and one of the first things to be looked at is the custodial parent's income. If they aren't working, then they should be, barring some circumstance that prevents it (such as care for an infant, injury, etc.).

If the situation was originally that the custodial parent was not working and this was the amount that was ordered... and then, for whatever reason, this amount was not being paid... And THEN the custodial parent found employment, especially employment that was sufficient enough to "take care of themselves and the children without the support" of the noncustodial parent, even if it was an amount that simply covered the bare minimum of the basic necessities of life... The question becomes, why wasn't the noncustodial child support obligation revisited and revised down to a more reasonable level? Another observation is the built-in incentive for the custodial parent to prevent the noncustodial parent from having any custodial time whatsoever... simply because it reduces the amount received. Exactly why I stated previously that all allegations of abuse in any way should be provable and substantiated before any enforcement actions.

As an FYI: using the fed guidelines, under the same circumstances, the support amount would have been ~$1k per month or so... maybe less given health ins costs (because health  care premiums are split 50:50).

[margomaps]

As shown, the amount isn't $12,600/yr, but is $15,120/yr... {snip}

Yes, clearly I was using the $1,052/mo figure since I wasn't aware of the subsequent increase.  At any rate, it doesn't really change my point: were the couple still married, he undoubtedly wouldn't have batted an eye at providing sub-poverty-level income to help raise his children.  Upon separation from his wife -- I don't care who's to blame for the separation! -- how is it that providing the same meager assistance is now untenable?

At what point during the separation is a person's actual/moral responsibility (assuming it ever existed) to his children absolved?  Or at what point does the person feel that it is no longer his responsibility to provide for his children?

And like FreelanceFreedomFighter, I'd also like to stress that I "have no horse in this race" either.  My question about financial support of children would exist entirely apart from the situation at hand.

[FreelanceFreedomFighter]

FreeLance I mean you no disrespect but you are really out of touch with reality. I call it alimony because if it quacks like a duck.........And yes I did have to buy the clothes because I was told it was my duty. Yes it does incur additional cost because I have to pay for the insurance AND all of the prescriptions AND make sure and take time off from my 1/2 job to take the kids to the doctor. Yes I did feel guilty for a while. My ex and the state's attorney saw to that but then I stepped back and looked at the bigger picture.

This is not a Libertarian argument. This is not an argument about the theory of freedom. This is an argument about equity. On a flow chart it looks like this: My ex gets her job, child support, all of the kids' bills paid, food stamps and tax breaks. I get 1/2 a job, a mountain of bills and the threat of jail.

I agree that it is not a libertarian or freedom argument. I knew the rules in 3 states before, and just looked up CA. I also know that a large number of states follow the fed guidelines... I know and absolutely agree that judges and lawyers rig the system, often ignoring the guidelines. (As one such judge once said in a case I was observing, "that's why they're called 'guidelines' instead of 'rules'... so I can ignore them and order what I say is right." No Kidding!  ) However, as far as the guidelines go, in every one of those formulas, the income of the custodial parent is a part of the equation. In some cases, it is an equal part of the equation, but I know of at least one state where the custodial parent gets to drop $20k from their gross income before the calculation begins. Also, in every formula that I've seen health care premiums are either split or the person paying for them gets credit for that expense.

Also, I'd like to point out that regardless of perceptions, I've seen both fathers AND mothers get abused by the courts in these matters. It doesn't seem to have to do with the gender of the "screwee", but more with the connections the attorneys have with the court personnel and especially the judge in the matter. I have seen abusers granted custody right after watching the abuser's attorney go into chambers ex-parte with the judge. I have seen the financial proof that someone had paid-off a Guardian ad Litem, and watched as the judge (who the attorney of the person that paid-off the GAL had bragged about being close personal friends with) censored and told to "shut up" the other party when the proof was presented... even "disallowed" it to be entered into evidence because, as the judge stated, "that's irrelevant!" I have seen a situation where a good man was accused of abuse and a restraining order was ordered on nothing more than an accusation from a woman. I have seen a woman with medical records, multiple witnesses, and literally shaking in fear get denied a restraining order against a proven and known abuser because, as put by the judge, "I don't see any blood or visible bruises on you. It must not be that bad. Maybe you shouldn't get him upset at you."

While I still maintain my position on responsibility and duty to one's children, I do know that the system is bad... corrupt in many ways. That doesn't relieve people of their responsibilities. It does mean that I want to eliminate the current system for one that is more equitable and fair. One that is private. One that rewards responsibility and punishes BS. I have my own feelings on what that system should be, and it isn't what we have now in any way.

I'm sorry that you got screwed. I don't think anyone should be screwed by this system/setup. My "agenda" as it were, was to point out the need for responsibility to support one's offspring. As margomaps asks (and I paraphrase the beginning): "Upon separation from {each other, regardless who's to blame} - - how is it that providing the same meager assistance is now untenable?"

You obviously were doing that. I know lots of noncustodial parents that do that... even to their own detriment. In this case, I've read two sides to the story that seem to kind of, sort of, match... but not really. Looking at and running the numbers from CA, I am starting to disbelieve certain parts of the story.  But the truth is that there are ways to fight this. Allowing things to build up to such an extreme without so much as a letter to the court (even if it said, I don't recognize your jurisdiction and here are some points for you to consider) would have gone a long way. No matter how unfair it is, this is the system that was used in the confrontation between the parties. I guess my secondary agenda, which I didn't push or bring up too much, is the fact that this is NOT a mother v. father situation, it is a corrupt system situation. A system setup to create conflict between the two parties as the only way to "win", when the truth should be that there are no winners and losers... and the only consideration should be what's best for the children. Having TWO parents in their lives is what's best IMNSHO.

It appears that the "family" was living on a take home pay of ~$30k before the split. Because the "ex" wasn't working, the state gave her 1/2 of what the breadwinner made. That's pretty harsh with such a small "pot", but it isn't really uncommon. In your situation, according to what you've told us, your ex got to keep her pay without it being included in the calculations, you were not credited against your support obligations for payment of medical insurance or bills, you weren't allowed to take the children for tax purposes, you paid for all the clothes/bills/supplies/etc for your children, you took the time to take your children to appointments and even with all that, you also said that your ex was getting food stamps!  ... How's that work?