Information to post on Unethical NH Attorneys, Guardian Ad Litems, Marital Masters, Judges or any other persons involved in "Judicial Child Abuse" or "Judicial Child Neglect." Please email details to nh.unethical.attorney@gmail.com. We will not post your identity or give out your personal information.

Message Board:

We need to keep the pressure on the NH Family Courts by educating the public about the numerous injustices occurring. Please feel free to send us your information for posting. I have not had any recent dealings with the court system so I do not have current information to post. The best way to deal with these unethical judges, guardian ad litems and lawyers is to post as much on them as you can so that people do not want to do business with them. I have personally known judges that have their own practices as most judges are attorneys first. Hit these people where it counts. Their wallets. Starve them out and cut off their funds. When people do not want to use their services, they will have to change their evil ways or be unemployed.

Monday, February 7, 2011

US Supreme Court to Hear Case Challenging Constitutionality of Jailing Parents for Inability to Pay Child Support (From the Fathers and Families Website)

Fathers and Families has for many years publicized the terrible child support problems often faced by low income obligors, and we've had some legislative success on the issue. Nevertheless, the problem remains acute, particularly due to the recession.

The injustice is typified by the case of Jeremy Lavine, one of three Fathers and Families supporters quoted in a national Associated Press article on the issue.

Lavine worked in the real estate industry and had a  $1,100 a month child support obligation based on a $4,500 a month income. Like so many in the real estate industry, his income dropped precipitously, yet the Florida Department of Children and Families told him his industry was going to bounce back and refused to give him a downward modification. The kicker? Lavine's kids live with him 50% of the time.

In the end, Lavine's ex-wife was very reasonable. Today she and Jeremy share the kids 50-50 and split day care and health care expenses, and neither pays child support. As Jeremy says, "we worked everything out--despite the child support system."

Now the US Supreme Court will soon hear oral arguments in Turner v. Price, a South Carolina case concerning one of the worst aspects of this abusive system--the way some states jail indigent child support debtors without providing them legal counsel.

The suit was filed by a coalition of legal groups, including the South Carolina American Civil Liberties Union and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. In their brief they wrote:

“The South Carolina Family Court nevertheless has imprisoned hundreds, and likely thousands, of indigent defendants for nonpayment of support without appointed counsel...

"These defendants languish in modern-day debtors’ prisons after patently unfair proceedings, many of which lack any factual findings. Often the courts do not even inquire into the defendant’s ability to pay their support obligation.”

Fathers and Families Board Member Robert Franklin, Esq. has been covering Turner and related cases and developments. In Prison for Indigent Parents Owing Child Support to Be Heard by the Supreme Court, Robert discusses a recent Atlanta Journal Constitution article on the issue:

"It’s worth noting that no one in the Georgia child support bureaucracy, no judge, no attorney challenges the assertion that Georgia jails non-custodial parents who are unable to pay their child support...

"War veteran Randy Miller supported his child very nicely for several years, but then lost his job.  He continued to put his child first and made his payments until he literally ran out of money.  He now has no assets of any kind including a bank account with 39 cents in it.

"The state’s response to his nightmare? Incarcerating him..."

For more information, see Robert's Three Cases Challenge Constitutionality of Jailing for Inability to Pay Child Support and Supreme Court to Hear Child Support Case by Indigent Dad.


  1. Dear Criminal Defense Lawyer in Chicago. You are quite welcome. Parental alienation and parental rights is a serious problem for millions of people. We need to secure our children’s future by protecting their rights to have both their parents in their lives.

    Too many people assume because a non custodial parent can’t afford to pay support it’s because they are a deadbeat. While it is true there are deadbeat parents, this is the wrong assumption to make about everyone that has fallen behind in support payments. There are lots of people that have had the misfortune of not being able to find gainful employment due to the economy. People have been laid off and hours and benefits have been cut. Look around. Houses have been foreclosed on everywhere.

    I use to make a fair salary and thought my job was secured. I soon learned it was not when I became unemployed. I have to live without and do whatever I can do just to scrape up enough money to pay my obligations so that I don’t get thrown in jail.

    There are lots of people that have been penalized and thrown in jail because the system has disregarded a parent’s right to survive. The system has literally made paychecks out of non custodial parents. It’s such a big business for some attorneys and many of our courts to make one person a custodial parent and make the other a non custodial paycheck as opposed to doing the right thing for the children which in most cases is allowing both parents equal access to their children.

    If a parent lost their job while married and had children, would they be thrown in jail because they couldn’t meet their family obligations? Of course not, the family would cut back and possibly receive some assistance. So why when a noncustodial parent loses their job does the court system often penalize that parent by labeling them as a deadbeat?

    Attorney Jaye Rancourt of BCLI argued in court that my ex would not be able to live off of any reduction in child support due to myself becoming unemployed and therefore I should continue to pay based on my original salary that I was not making any longer. Rancourt wanted blood out of a stone. Do you see an issue with this attorney’s ethics?

    I know in my case when I was unemployed, I would have stepped in and given daycare to my kids and drove them around to school, events and appointments if my ex had allowed it. Unfortunately she and her attorney would rather have had my kids go to paid daycare as opposed to being with their father.

    It’s time for a change. I hope the US Supreme Court can help facilitate that change.