The tax analogy would be the IRS thinks you should be better at stocks, maybe on the basis you had a few good years, then taxes you for that this year instead of your bad gains due to luck/depression/whatever.
https://greensboro.com/ex-hostage-jailed-in-child-support-ca...
I have a relative who worked in family law and I have no doubt there is a subset of the population (or rather the subset of the population who end up in the family court system) stupid and vindicative enough that they would deliberately get themselves held hostage, if they thought it would get them out of child support.
It would be more accurate to say that the court prioritises the welfare of the child above that of the parents.
That is, the system (in theory) should enforce that the child recieves the same level of support and standard of living as it would if the parents had not separated.
Judges take a very dim view of parents trying to escape their support obligations, as if they were allowed to do so it ultimately only hurts the child.
Is it really fair that previously they got to work hard to buy their kid nice things, but now they must work hard to buy them nice things or go to jail?
That's not true. The welfare of the child is already destroyed by separating the child from one of its parents. If the court prioritized the welfare of the child, then it would give out 50:50 custody by default, with the non-custodial parent having to consent to child support to avoid custody.
How was the court meant to know that? keeping in mind that article was from 1990 and it was a lot harder to share information.
It sounds like the court was sympathetic and he was freed as soon as practicable:
>Sherrill called a family member, who contacted the chief district judge, Sol Cherry. Cherry called the jail and ordered Sherrill's release. He was freed about 7:30 p.m.
"freed as soon as practicable"
They demanded cash only. In the evening.
Practical in my opinion would have been, "yeah sure, as a just released hostage we can sort it all out tomorrow in your case"
But everbody followed their orders and acted as part of the machine.
It's more along the lines of trying to prevent the non-custodial parent from having visitation and that sort of thing.
A story I’ve seen play out several times.
>stupid and vindicative enough that they would deliberately get themselves held hostage, if they thought it would get them out of child support.
It sounds like you're arguing in favor of a broken system. In what world is it rational to get held hostage? In this one apparently.
