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

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.