Child support has become a misleading policy term meaning not love and care for a child, but monetary sex payments legally imposed highly disparately on men. Child support is part of the state regime regulating men’s sexuality and imposing unplanned parenthood (forced fatherhood) on men. Child support laws have generated imprisonment of men, without the benefit of counsel, for sex payment (“child support”) debt. The U.S. Supreme Court case Turner v. Rogers, 387 S. C. 142, 691 S. E. 2d 470 (2011) addressed this sordid state of affairs.
About 14 times more mothers than fathers have received physical custody of their children. That’s a huge, legally supported, gender inequality. … Read the post sexism and gender inequality in family courts
Despite Turner v. Rogers formal scope, it provides a better guide to substantive grounds for incarcerating child-support debtors than does U.S. v Ballek. … Read the post legal standards for imprisoning child-support debtors
Given Turner v. Rogers, unrepresented child-support debtors should not be incarcerated without a simple, explicit determination of present ability-to-pay. … Read the post ability-to-pay determination under Turner v. Rogers safeguards
One Turner v. Rogers safeguard for incarcerating an unrepresented child-support debtor via civil contempt: a simple finding of present ability to pay. … Read the post Turner v. Rogers safeguards imprisonment of child-support debtors
California child-support agencies educate prisoners on child-support rights. Their counsel is no good substitute for a lawyer’s counsel. … Read the post counseling prisoners on child-support obligations