Ya this is why I don't think the courts will consider the 20K as salary. The point I was trying to make is it doesn't matter whether they consider it a 20K salary during those years or a $0 salary. He will still be obligated to pay the same minimum amount if the courts choose to force him to pay anything at all.
Ya this is why I don't think the courts will consider the 20K as salary. The point I was trying to make is it doesn't matter whether they consider it a 20K salary during those years or a $0 salary. He will still be obligated to pay the same minimum amount if the courts choose to force him to pay anything at all.
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 67
- 91
The amount of "fair" restitution to the prisoner in this situation is a tricky issue, because you have to balance his rights versus those of the taxpayers. To me it would depend on whether the imprisonment resulted from actual prosecutorial misconduct or not.
If there was ample evidence suggesting this guy's guilt, and the prosecutor reasonably believed he was guilty, it seems to me nobody did anything wrong by prosecuting him. The fact that he was apparently innocent doesn't necessarily make the prosecution improper, and so I don't know that it's fair for the taxpayers to give him a windfall. I know that sounds rough, and that being a convicted rapist is a stain he will never fully escape, but sometimes unfair things happen in life.
If, on the other hand, some prosecutor deliberately cooked up a case against him, or withheld or ignored exculpatory evidence, the prosecutor and the state deserve to be hammered IMO.
On balance, I would personally take the view that $900K ($50K per year) would be a baseline starting point for calculating damages, and the amount would only go up from there. I would not be offended by him receiving $1.8M ($100K per year), and perhaps more if there was deliberate prosecutorial misconduct.
If there was ample evidence suggesting this guy's guilt, and the prosecutor reasonably believed he was guilty, it seems to me nobody did anything wrong by prosecuting him. The fact that he was apparently innocent doesn't necessarily make the prosecution improper, and so I don't know that it's fair for the taxpayers to give him a windfall. I know that sounds rough, and that being a convicted rapist is a stain he will never fully escape, but sometimes unfair things happen in life.
If, on the other hand, some prosecutor deliberately cooked up a case against him, or withheld or ignored exculpatory evidence, the prosecutor and the state deserve to be hammered IMO.
On balance, I would personally take the view that $900K ($50K per year) would be a baseline starting point for calculating damages, and the amount would only go up from there. I would not be offended by him receiving $1.8M ($100K per year), and perhaps more if there was deliberate prosecutorial misconduct.
No, the mother should not get a dime. You can't file for back child support when there was no order to pay child support in place.
This being a civil issue means it will have to go to trial and get thrown out there.
Also, if the guy was in jail for 18 years, and the kid is not 18 yet, I would think their is a high probability that the guy might not be the father in the 1st place.
Anyone that thinks women should be able to sue to get money to raise a child are living in a world of "It's not my fault". You say well if the guy doesn't want to pay for a kid he shouldn't sleep with the woman. How about if the woman doesn't want to risk having to pay for a child by herself she should stop being a whore and close her fucking legs.
This has nothing to do with child support, it has to do with a greedy bitch that is looking for either half this guys money that he just got, or she is hoping for a settlement.
What he should do is tell her he will settle it by paying for the kids college. If she balks at that then you know she is a gold digging c#nt.
Poor guy, first he gets locked up and gets his ass pounded for 18 years, and now that bitch wants $$ just because he received restitution.
I think the state should pay her child support for dicking her and the guy over. Don't make any one of them suffer for one minute longer.
BrunoPuntzJones
Lifer
- Feb 24, 2001
- 14,513
- 4
- 81
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 67
- 91
It was only a matter of time before a true woman-hater opened his festering gob. Any post that includes the words "whore," "bitch," and "c#nt" doesn't merit further comment IMO.
Your argument makes no sense. It's not a case of "it's not my fault." It's a case of covering someone else's expense and responsibility and wanting restitution for the back pay. Of course she'd like some of her money back, would you be ok with overpaying for 18 years?
Also, why would her not settling on having the back paid child support go to the child's college fund have anything to do with the issue at hand? The child going to college, by legal standards, is no longer the responsibility of the parent. Many parents will voluntarily help their child because of the high cost but that does not mean they're liable for it.
I have yet to see a logical, well stated argument for why the woman shouldn't receive a fair sum for the overpayment of child support. Every argument against the woman is emotion driven and essentially breaks down to the over-generalization of women. Sadly it fits the ATOT mold so well.
The money in this situation shouldn't consider as salary. His salary for the last 18 yrs or so were next to zero. If the mother needs to sue, then she needs to sue the State.
If he does have to pay, I hope that the checks go directly into the kid's bank account to support him in college or maybe go towards a down payment on his first house or something. Otherwise I'd say the odds of all that money going towards the kid...ahem...adult.
waggy
No Lifer
- Dec 14, 2000
- 68,143
- 10
- 81
why should it? the mother had to pay for eveyrhtng for 18 years. when the fathe rshould have been contributing to his upbringing.
i have no problem with her getting $20-30k.
BUT if she was on welfare/foodstamps/etc a porton of that needs to go back to the state. since they paid out over hte years.
Isn't the argument more along the lines that she has been overpaying for the last 18 years and that had the father been around (even though it's not his fault) her cost would've been lower? The disposable income she would've had if he had been around is what she's suing for as she has already paid for the sunk costs involved in raising the child. It would be nice if she voluntarily used the money on her child but I do not see a reason why she remotely needs to use it for that purpose.
That's correct. This is just my personal opinion on what I feel is the best thing would be to do. I understand the law may not agree with me though.
Here is another thing. I was thinking and I don't believe he will have to pay a dime unless child support was filed at some point before now which the article doesn't mention. I believe that many states will not allow filing for back dated child support after the child is a certain age. We'll see how it goes.
As already mentioned, his child support obligation should be based upon his actual income during the time the child was a minor. The fact that his income was severely restricted due to his conviction for a crime he did not commit is no fault of his, and any restitution he gets from the State should not be treated as earned income for the purposes of child support. Of course, I am not a lawyer, and I have been screwed by the system personally so I have the utmost confidence that she will get a sizeable chunk of his money.
And as far as the poster who says that no child support is due because there was no order in place - nice try. A friend of mine was recently served with papers for delinquent child support on a child that he did not know he had, and who was about to turn 18. The mother, peach of a woman that she was, elected not to tell him that she was pregnant and eventually had his child. She waited until the child was 17+ and filed in hopes of getting a nice lump sum payment, which of course she did.
And as far as the poster who says that no child support is due because there was no order in place - nice try. A friend of mine was recently served with papers for delinquent child support on a child that he did not know he had, and who was about to turn 18. The mother, peach of a woman that she was, elected not to tell him that she was pregnant and eventually had his child. She waited until the child was 17+ and filed in hopes of getting a nice lump sum payment, which of course she did.
Are you sure she got a lump sum? The way this sort of thing usually works is that the state will automatically deduct from your paycheck the amount agreed to by the courts and will continue to do so until it is paid off. That amount is based on the father's income, the mother's income, the costs to support the child, etc. It still sucks, but at least the guy isn't going to go bankrupt.
Yes - lump sum. He has his own business, so there was no paycheck to deduct from. He was given a choice - have $xxxxx dollars paid by a set date, or go to jail.
You're kidding, right..? Jesus, maybe I'll think twice about being nice and doing a donation, then.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter