Los Angeles, CA asked in Child Support, Family Law, Civil Rights and Constitutional Law for Pennsylvania

Q: Plaintiff not present at Child Support Contempt of Court Hearing – Unconstitutional?

1. I appeared at Contempt of Court Hearing regarding Child Support but never filed an Entry of Appearance

2. Plaintiff was not present, I objected, it was overruled

3. Judge stated on the public record that the court adheres to all the laws of the Federal Constitution and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, yet overruled my objection that I have a right to confront my accuser

4. The entire Hearing was against an attorney representing a Domestic Relations “Enforcement Officer” and none of their names are on the Court caption

5. If Enforcement Officer is a witness for Plaintiff, I was never given a list of Plaintiff’s witnesses in advance

6. I was never given a list of the exhibits of Enforcement Officer ahead of time that were used against me

7. The Enforcement Officer did all of the testimony, and I cross-examined her and was cross-examined by attorney representing her

Explanation as to how this was lawful and did not deprive me of my secured rights?

1 Lawyer Answer
Peter Christopher Lomtevas
Peter Christopher Lomtevas pro label Lawyers, want to be a Justia Connect Pro too? Learn more ›
  • Schenectady, NY
  • Licensed in Pennsylvania

A: This asker posed this question on Avvo. This was the response:

This question leaves some unanswered question one of which is who is the obligee. Is the obligee the custodial parent or is it the government who obtained an assignment of the obligation. The impression from this narrative is that the government has obtained an assignment of the child support payment, and has proceeded to hold a hearing addressing the asker's contempt of the order of support though the same answer holds if the obligee is the custodial parent. We are unable to provide assistance in appealing any Pennsylvania order because we are not the asker's attorney.

As for some explanation of how this whole event was lawful is very easy, and a brief review of recent welfare history is in order. Back in the 1960s, as a gesture to provide support for indigent American families, government established laws that provided food and shelter at tax payer expense. The public called this "welfare" meaning these laws were intended for the welfare of the indigent. Newspaper accounts included stories of how generations of people lived free of charge on the government's tab. Something had to be done said the public.

The U.S. Congress under the republicans established child support enforcement. This is the process of compelling fathers to pay for their children unless fathers were so destitute that they could not. One example of a law is the Child Support Standards Act which defines the amount of money it takes to support an American child. As this was a federal law, it preempted all state laws regarding the support of children. More acts followed to include the enforcement provisions applying to non-welfare cases, and the abdication of the court's authority to the custodial parent to waive arrears. This ensnared every American family in the welfare system. All they needed to do was come to court.

Pennsylvania enacted laws based on the federal laws. For example, Pennsylvania enacted Chapter 43 of Title 23 entitled Support Matters Generally. In that statute, the asker gets all the due process he is due. The statute calls the non custodial parent an "obligor." The asker can run a word search through the statute to see all the rights the "obligor" has which are slim to none. There is no need for the government obligee to be present as the state will represent itself. There is no requirement to provide a list of plaintiff's witnesses. There is nothing available outside the four corners of the statute, and the only secured rights this asker has is what the statute contains. The asker's employer can be held in contempt if the employer fails to impose wage garnishment own the obligor's paycheck. A bank can be held in contempt.

This was the government's reaction to welfare: make middle class parents pay money to each other to shut them about their complaints of the welfare system.

Justia Ask a Lawyer is a forum for consumers to get answers to basic legal questions. Any information sent through Justia Ask a Lawyer is not secure and is done so on a non-confidential basis only.

The use of this website to ask questions or receive answers does not create an attorney–client relationship between you and Justia, or between you and any attorney who receives your information or responds to your questions, nor is it intended to create such a relationship. Additionally, no responses on this forum constitute legal advice, which must be tailored to the specific circumstances of each case. You should not act upon information provided in Justia Ask a Lawyer without seeking professional counsel from an attorney admitted or authorized to practice in your jurisdiction. Justia assumes no responsibility to any person who relies on information contained on or received through this site and disclaims all liability in respect to such information.

Justia cannot guarantee that the information on this website (including any legal information provided by an attorney through this service) is accurate, complete, or up-to-date. While we intend to make every attempt to keep the information on this site current, the owners of and contributors to this site make no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness or adequacy of the information contained in or linked to from this site.