• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Alaska: Palin Daughter Seeks Child Support

You were wrong on ALL points.

Sarah Palin needs to be removed from the equation and told to shut her hole.

If Bristol doesn't want Levi to have parental rights, she cannot ask him to take responsibility either. She cannot have both ways.

Levi is suing the Palin's ass off and is going to win his case. The Palins are arguing that Levi Johnson is unfit based on activities he has done that violate THEIR moral code. Nothing more.

It's a bull**** argument that will fail miserably in court. Levi has done nothing illegal and cannot legally be judged as "unfit"; therefore, he will get 50/50 custody and the first time the Palin's fail to adhere they (Bristol) and propbly Sarah Palin will be serving time for contempt of court.

Don't like it? Too damn bad. That is how the law works. Levi's rights where Tripp is concerned trump Sarah Palin's.

Right, just like the kid who was going to sue the pants off the Christian school for not letting him graduate for going to prom.

So far you are 0 and 1 with me. I am willing to bet in a few months you will be 0 and 2 on court cases with me.

Thats cool, I did not even have to go to law school for six years. :lol:

You have a good night!
 
Moderator's Warning:
I am not going to quote the multitude of personal attacks and troll posts. Next one gets consequences.
 
To start with, were not talking about FULL CUSTODY; We're talking about SOLE CUSTODY. These are two very diffrent things.

Moreover, civil Law 90.3 only covers how child support is calculated. It does not cover situations wherin one parent has sole custody and refuses visitaton or joint custody.

Levi is currently suing the Palins over this issue.

I say we save further debate until the conclusion of thosep proceedings.

What say you?

You're the one confusing the two, which is where the problem is coming from.

If Bristol didn't know Levi at all and decided to adopt his child, she would have full and sole legal custody. He would not owe her anything for the child's upbringing. However, because they had the child together, this is not the case. The moment the child is born, they both have joint responsibility for the child's expenses. Regardless of who is the primary custodial parent, each side is expected to contribute.

Whether or not Bristol is complying with whatever visitation order they have (if they have one) is entirely unrelated to Levi's support. I've seen a half dozen deadbeat dads try the "Your honor, she doesn't let me see him so why should I pay child support" argument. I've even seen the "Your honor, I don't even want to see him - can I just give her full custody and then not pay?" argument. They all lose.

Until the kid is 18, both sides are paying for it.
 
You're the one confusing the two, which is where the problem is coming from.

If Bristol didn't know Levi at all and decided to adopt his child, she would have full and sole legal custody. He would not owe her anything for the child's upbringing. However, because they had the child together, this is not the case. The moment the child is born, they both have joint responsibility for the child's expenses. Regardless of who is the primary custodial parent, each side is expected to contribute.

Whether or not Bristol is complying with whatever visitation order they have (if they have one) is entirely unrelated to Levi's support. I've seen a half dozen deadbeat dads try the "Your honor, she doesn't let me see him so why should I pay child support" argument. I've even seen the "Your honor, I don't even want to see him - can I just give her full custody and then not pay?" argument. They all lose.

Until the kid is 18, both sides are paying for it.
Okay, so I have a question. If remitting child support and providing visitation aren't a quid pro quo, how does one enforce visitation rights?

A couple of other questions--just out of curiousity. If there isn't a legally binding agreement in place, Levi doesn't owe anything yet (though he may be required to pay something based on previous income), isn't that right? If they had a private agreement that he would pay X and she would bring the baby for him to see, seems like he's acted with perfect reason until such time as a court lays down requirements for both of them.

Since his income in 2009 was pretty much a windfall, can't the court require him to pay a large amount for that year and then a smaller amount based on his expected income for 2010 and beyond?
 
You're the one confusing the two, which is where the problem is coming from.

If Bristol didn't know Levi at all and decided to adopt his child, she would have full and sole legal custody. He would not owe her anything for the child's upbringing. However, because they had the child together, this is not the case. The moment the child is born, they both have joint responsibility for the child's expenses. Regardless of who is the primary custodial parent, each side is expected to contribute.

Whether or not Bristol is complying with whatever visitation order they have (if they have one) is entirely unrelated to Levi's support. I've seen a half dozen deadbeat dads try the "Your honor, she doesn't let me see him so why should I pay child support" argument. I've even seen the "Your honor, I don't even want to see him - can I just give her full custody and then not pay?" argument. They all lose.

Until the kid is 18, both sides are paying for it.

Now I know you've been in a courtroom. I do not know if you're a lawyer or not but I see you point.

Bristol needs to give some to get some. There is ample evidence that Levi has made attempts to give her money on a number of occasions and Bristol, who was asked to bring his son with her, has failed to show up.

Since Levi has no custody and Bristol clearly, based on her mothers reiche-wing code of ethics, doesn't believe Levi should have custody; I do not see how granting her an obnoxious amount of support can be done in good conscience.

The Palins are very much trying to deny Levi Johnson the rights to which a biological parent is entitled. This is the same as Bristol having sole custody of the child.

Therefore, she is not entitled to support.
 
Okay, so I have a question. If remitting child support and providing visitation aren't a quid pro quo, how does one enforce visitation rights?

A couple of other questions--just out of curiousity. If there isn't a legally binding agreement in place, Levi doesn't owe anything yet (though he may be required to pay something based on previous income), isn't that right? If they had a private agreement that he would pay X and she would bring the baby for him to see, seems like he's acted with perfect reason until such time as a court lays down requirements for both of them.

Since his income in 2009 was pretty much a windfall, can't the court require him to pay a large amount for that year and then a smaller amount based on his expected income for 2010 and beyond?

This is a legal gray area. If the judge hearing the case is a liberal, then its likely the hearing will be fairer. Since there was no official order of support, or custody order, Levi may well have been paying a set sum each month.

If this is the case, Levi has been doing as he agreed. This certainly would make it appear as though the Palins are playing dirty pool.

In fact, based on what little evidence I have been able to find, I believe this is likely to be the case.

On the other hand, if the judge is a reich-wing morals nazi, Levi is likely to get screwed like a two dollar hooker. If he's smart, he would appeal such a judgment (which in family court just means another hearing in front of a different judge).

Did I answer your question?
 
This is a legal gray area.
Something tells me that, considering these sorts of battles go on between estranged parents all the time in cases that get no media attention at all, there are precedents, formulas, and procedures in place that would reduce (though not eliminate) the discretion of the judge.
Did I answer your question?
I'm asking anyone with experience of family law what are the customs and procedures in this area. That said, I would respond, with respect, that a less partisan response is in order.
 
Okay, so I have a question. If remitting child support and providing visitation aren't a quid pro quo, how does one enforce visitation rights?

(I am not an attorney, none of this constitutes legal advice, and the rules may be different depending on the state. Don't rely on any of this to do anything. Contact an attorney in your state if you have questions beyond a general curiosity.)

You go back to the magistrate who entered your initial custody order and ask that he enforce it. The magistrate will call both parties in and try to determine what's going on. If he finds that one party is violating it, he can threaten to hold them in contempt. That usually does it.

A couple of other questions--just out of curiousity. If there isn't a legally binding agreement in place, Levi doesn't owe anything yet (though he may be required to pay something based on previous income), isn't that right? If they had a private agreement that he would pay X and she would bring the baby for him to see, seems like he's acted with perfect reason until such time as a court lays down requirements for both of them.

There is an implied obligation upon birth imposed on both parties. While they're certainly free to enter into a private support or custody agreement, at any point either one of them can go to court and ask that an official order be entered. Though the amount won't be set until there's a factfinding, the amount owed is retroactive to the day of filing.

Since his income in 2009 was pretty much a windfall, can't the court require him to pay a large amount for that year and then a smaller amount based on his expected income for 2010 and beyond?

At any point, either party can seek an upward or downward modification based on change of circumstances.

Bristol needs to give some to get some. There is ample evidence that Levi has made attempts to give her money on a number of occasions and Bristol, who was asked to bring his son with her, has failed to show up.

Since Levi has no custody and Bristol clearly, based on her mothers reiche-wing code of ethics, doesn't believe Levi should have custody; I do not see how granting her an obnoxious amount of support can be done in good conscience.

The Palins are very much trying to deny Levi Johnson the rights to which a biological parent is entitled. This is the same as Bristol having sole custody of the child.

Therefore, she is not entitled to support.

I don't know the ins and outs of what did or didn't happen, primarily because I don't give a **** and hope that they all go away forever. I'm simply pointing out that in the vast, vast majority of states, visitation and child support are treated independently of each other in order to prevent parents from doing exactly what you're saying he should do.
 
reich-wing code of ethics? What the hell is that?
 
Extort money? Uhh I'm pretty sure that the Palin family is doing pretty well financially, whereas this piece of trailer trash probably doesn't have much.



What makes you think he WANTS 50/50 custody? He hardly seems like a responsible adult. And at any rate, child support is used to SUPPORT the CHILD, and therefore he should pay it regardless of the status of any custody battle.

No "should" about it.....that's the law.
 
No, probably not.



Actually, if he isn't allowed to be in his child's life, if he is denied contact; in most states, he isn't required to pay child support.

The Palin's are about to learn that the hard way. Also... Levi has grounds for filing suit against Sarah Palin for alienation of affection as well as custodial interference (the latter is also a criminal offense in some states).

The Palins will end up settling equitably because if the do not ... Sarah Palin's political career, what there is left of it at this point, will be further damaged.

Sarah Palin's interference in the issue will become a campaign issue that the liberals will exploit. In the end, the Republicans will dump Palin's ass to avoid further embarassment.

You pegged my BS meter on that on...

bsmeter.gif


Please give links to un-peg it.
 
Giving Up a Father's Parental Rights | eHow.com

In most cases, when a father chooses to give up his parental rights, he is completely released from any obligation to care for his biological child. Under the eyes of the law, the biological father and child are not related. The child may not inherit under the father's will as one of his children, and the father has no obligation whatsoever to care for the child.

In some cases, a father might continue to be held responsible for financially supporting his biological child even after he gives up his paternal rights. For example, if the mother must seek governmental assistance in order to support the child, a judge has the authority to terminate parental rights. He can still require the father to pay child support until the child reaches adulthood. This results in the father is still being financially responsible for the child without having any visitation rights or say in how the child is raised. See Illinois DHFS v. Warner, Ill., Illinois Supreme Court, January 25, 2008.
 
Last edited:
Giving Up a Father's Parental Rights | eHow.com

In most cases, when a father chooses to give up his parental rights, he is completely released from any obligation to care for his biological child. Under the eyes of the law, the biological father and child are not related. The child may not inherit under the father's will as one of his children, and the father has no obligation whatsoever to care for the child.

In some cases, a father might continue to be held responsible for financially supporting his biological child even after he gives up his paternal rights. For example, if the mother must seek governmental assistance in order to support the child, a judge has the authority to terminate parental rights. He can still require the father to pay child support until the child reaches adulthood. This results in the father is still being financially responsible for the child without having any visitation rights or say in how the child is raised. See Illinois DHFS v. Warner, Ill., Illinois Supreme Court, January 25, 2008.

I'd be wary of taking a poorly reviewed article on eHow.com as authoritative. It differs by state, but it's by no means standard that fathers can avoid child support simply by saying they don't want their kid anymore. I've seen that exact request denied multiple times, but never granted.
 
Right, just like the kid who was going to sue the pants off the Christian school for not letting him graduate for going to prom.

So far you are 0 and 1 with me. I am willing to bet in a few months you will be 0 and 2 on court cases with me.

Thats cool, I did not even have to go to law school for six years. :lol:

You have a good night!

Yet another example of the reich-wing forcing its morals on other people.
 
Yet another example of the reich-wing forcing its morals on other people.

What, exactly, do you refer to with this term "reich-wing"?
 
What, exactly, do you refer to with this term "reich-wing"?

Generally speaking, it's a term I use to refer to the far right individuals who believe their personal moral code should be the law of the land.
 
Generally speaking, it's a term I use to refer to the far right individuals who believe their personal moral code should be the law of the land.

If the demographic you describe only believe such, then I don’t see the issue.

If the demographic you describe actively tries to force other persons to follow such, then I take issue.
 
If the demographic you describe only believe such, then I don’t see the issue.

If the demographic you describe actively tries to force other persons to follow such, then I take issue.

If you look at the far right's stance on abortion, you can clearly see that they are opposed to it. That is acceptable. The fact that they want to make universally illegal is not.

In so doing, the reich-wing seeks to make others conform to their personal moral fabric.
 
If you look at the far right's stance on abortion, you can clearly see that they are opposed to it. That is acceptable. The fact that they want to make universally illegal is not.

In so doing, the reich-wing seeks to make others conform to their personal moral fabric.
When are you going to talk like a centrist?
 
Back
Top Bottom