Turner v. Rogers Turns 5 Years Old | What the Supreme Court did and didn’t say

Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431 is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court on June 20, 2011, that held that a state must provide safeguards to reduce the risk of erroneous Deprivation of Liberty ...

 End date: 2011 Docket number: 10 Citation: 564.
Lawless Family Courts: Jailing people for debt is Unconstitutional - A form of Extortion from Bob Norton on Vimeo.
Many states are jailing people to extort money from their friends and families. This is literally extortion as civil courts are not allowed to use civil contempt to punish, nor jail people who do not have the money. Learn how to protect yourself from unlawful jail time with a few words.

Turner v. Rogers, the Court was asked if deadbeat dads who fail to pay child support have a right to counsel when facing incarceration.

Lawless Family Courts: Constitutional Law Requires Treating Everyone Equally - Judges Don't Care from Bob Norton on Vimeo.

Sexism is rampant in family court, though not always the determining factor. Money generation almost always overrides this law. After illegal termination of one parents rights the litigation is on and everything you own, and could earn for up to 24 years is too. Honoring the 14th Amendment would mean granting equal time and custody in any case where both parents are fit, but that would not generate billions in federal kickbacks for all 50 state judicial systems - and they are now addicted to this money flow. The best interest of children will never get in the way of paychecks for their mostly unneeded jobs.

Turner v. Rogers: What the Court Did and Didn’t Say | ACS: 

By Rebekah Diller, deputy director of the Justice Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. This is a cross-post from the Brennan Center’s blog. Posted on June 21, 2011.

In a mixed result for the rights of indigent parents, the Supreme Court yesterday held that the year-long incarceration of a South Carolina man for failure to pay child support violated the Constitution because adequate safeguards had not been in place to ensure that his failure to pay was willful. However, the Court also ruled that parents facing jail time for failure to pay child support do not have a categorical right to a court-appointed defense attorney when the other parent is unrepresented.

The case, Turner v. Rogers, involved an appeal of an order finding Michael Turner in civil contempt because of his failure to pay child support. At the hearing, Mr. Turner had been unrepresented by counsel and had attempted to explain to the judge why he could not pay his debt. The judge did not make any finding as to Turner’s ability to pay the arrears and nonetheless ordered Turner to serve a year in prison.

Child Support Rules ~ Biased Against Fathers?

Turner v. Rogers

Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431 is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court on June 20, 2011, that held that a state must provide safeguards to reduce the risk of erroneous deprivation of liberty ...Wikipedia

End date: 2011 ~~ Docket number: 10 ~~ Citation: 564

Broward State Attorney Ignores Child Support Guidelines Turner v. Rogers and commits an act of,
"Erroneous Deprivation of Liberty" by Arresting  a Disabled Dad for Non-Payment of Child Support in Case 02-24972

Family Court Corruption and to Abolish Title IV-D Funding from States to have incentives to illegally "courtnap" children, CPS corruption, judicial corruption!!

Title IV_D funding has caused great grief to those families trying to get a "fair hearing" in family court. The Family Court Judges, attorney ad litems, psychologist benefit from Title IV-D funding. The funds are given to the states on collection of child support. There is no incentive to grant the "best parent" custody - but to examine which parent can pay child support. This is important as every dollar of child support collected is matched by Title IV-D funding. The funding going to the States are not used to enforce visitation rights of the non-custodial parent, but going into areas of the State that are not accounted for.

• US Code

prev | next

• § 651 - Authorization of appropriations
• § 652 - Duties of Secretary
• § 653 - Federal Parent Locator Service
• § 653a - State Directory of New Hires
• § 654 - State plan for child and spousal support
• § 654a - Automated data processing
• § 654b - Collection and disbursement of support payments
• § 655 - Payments to States
• § 655a - Provision for reimbursement of expenses
• § 656 - Support obligation as obligation to State; amount; discharge in bankruptcy
• § 657 - Distribution of collected support
• § 658 - Repealed. , ,
• § 658a - Incentive payments to States
• § 659 - Consent by United States to income withholding, garnishment, and similar proceedings for enforcement of child support and alimony obligations
• § 659a - International support enforcement
• § 660 - Civil action to enforce child support obligations; jurisdiction of district courts
• § 661 - Repealed. , ,
• § 663 - Use of Federal Parent Locator Service in connection with enforcement or determination of child custody in cases of parental kidnaping of child
• § 664 - Collection of past-due support from Federal tax refunds
• § 665 - Allotments from pay for child and spousal support owed by members of uniformed services on active duty
• § 666 - Requirement of statutorily prescribed procedures to improve effectiveness of child support enforcement
• § 667 - State guidelines for child support awards
• § 668 - Encouragement of States to adopt civil procedure for establishing paternity in contested cases
• § 669 - Collection and reporting of child support enforcement data
• § 669a - Nonliability for financial institutions providing financial records to State child support enforcement agencies in child support cases
• § 669b - Grants to States for access and visitation programs

~ 42 U.S. Code Part D Child Support and Establishment of Paternity

AFLA has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or references AFLA.

Commit to changing the outcome of your family court case!

WHY MEN LOSE IN FAMILY COURT

Dear Friend and Fellow Advocate,

Thanks for visiting our site! Like most individuals you have probably come to our site for one primary reason. You are looking for answers to a specific Fathers rights family law problem. Let me assure you that you've come to the right place. We have the answers you need!

The subject of this article is "Why Do Men Lose In Family Court?" I have spent the last 23 years attempting to answer this question. After considerable research, case evaluations and client interviews I believe I now have the answer.

Twenty three years ago I went through a brutal divorce. Actually, at the time of divorce we were very friendly with one another and agreed to settle out of court. My Ex-wife, through a paralegal filed for divorce and like most men I simply agreed to the terms. I walked away with nothing! I surrendered the house, ($40,000.00 in equity) the boat, the car, furniture etc. etc...Everything I had acquired in 13 years of marriage was suddenly gone. We had three children and I wanted them to have the benefit of these items. Although I didn't realize it at the time I could have and should have made better agreements that would have benefited all members of my family in a much greater way. Looking back I simply didn't know what a good agreement was or how to make the deal. I was so concerned about maintaining a good relationship with my ex that I avoided anything that might have resulted in a legal battle. I should have filed my response with the court and requested an equitable division of property, custody, visitation and a support order that was based on my Real income. In general I should have been more attentive to the legal issues. This was truly a mistake!

Like most men I had adopted the common belief that men always lose in divorce proceedings so why not just surrender everything now and avoid the inevitable. What I didn't realize at the time was that I wasn't doing anyone any favors by surrendering everything to my ex-wife. Ignorantly giving up my property caused my wife to develop a false confidence in the legal system that would soon allow her to sue me again and again and again. Like many women she understood the prevailing thought of men that they always lose in family court and she capitalized on this belief. Therefore it didn't matter any longer how much I had given to her the fact that I didn't know what I was doing was extremely obvious. Despite everything I had surrendered, ignorantly failing to make fair and equitable agreements at the time of my departure from the family home was a colossal mistake and was a personal invitation for her to sue me later. I would in time realize that money and property are no substitute for a well-written, fair and equitable agreement of ALL issues. Like the American Express advertisement declares "Don't leave home without it!"

I had also surrendered a number of other rights simply because I was ignorant and wasn't aware of the significance of these rights. Mainly rights to my children. I had mistakenly believed that women always get custody of children and Dads always get the standard every other weekend visitation schedule. In fact I was so ignorant I actually thought this was the law! Little did I realize that even after I had given everything I had, I would still have to give more.