More headlines continue pouring in on the negatives associated with the nation's child support enforcement program.

Innocent Man Sent To Jail For Missed Child Support

BOSTON -- Systemic problems allowed an innocent Massachusetts man to be labeled a deadbeat dad and sent to jail.

Team 5 Investigates' Rhondella Richardson reported that it happened to John Caliri.

"I wake up in the morning and I go to bed at night, knowing that I've been in jail because of something I did not do, and I don't deserve it," said Caliri.

Original Source: http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/14763949/detail.html

The BostonChannel.Com, WCVB Channel 5, news site carried the story of another man that was affected by the child support enforcement program. This story brings up an interesting final point about the system essentially not listening to the evidence and just rushing to a judgment in an effort to compete for federal incentive money. "Anytime that you have government setting standards on negative outcomes you have a a serious risk of abuse, naturally you are going to see more broken homes and people jailed, because that is what the system is rewarded for," states Lary Holland.

PRESS CONTACT:

FORMER MINUTEMAN PROJECT VOLUNTEER FACES POSSIBLE 20 YEAR SENTENCE DUE TO CHILD SUPPORT

 A former Minuteman Project volunteer faces a possible 20-year criminal sentence for charges alleging outstanding child support, according to court records obtained through anonymous sources. Paul Sielski, a 41-year old Honorably Discharged Marine and Anti-Illegal Alien activist is scheduled to appear in Frederick County, Maryland Circuit Court for what appears to be a jury trial scheduled to determine if he is criminally responsible for allegations of felony non-support of a minor child and a common law charge of “constructive criminal contempt of court.

According to audio transcripts obtained through third parties and the court, Judge G. Edward Dwyer, Jr. went on the record to indicate that the Defendant Sielski could be sentenced to over 20 years in jail for the common law charge. Defendant Sielski has already been confined for over 100 days in the Frederick County Adult Detention Center.

 Paul Sielski has been unable to gain access to his child since August 2004, who is now three and a half years old. Upon review of the family court records no civil actions for contempt of court were ever prosecuted against the now criminally-charged Defendant. “There certainly are outstanding issues in the family court case that is now being used as the basis for the criminal charges against my husband,” states Deborah Courtney.

“No person should ever be ordered to pay $3500.00 monthly for child and spousal support, especially when visitation has been consistently withheld by the Defendant’s Ex-Wife,” further states Courtney. Upon review of the court record, the same judge that ordered that level of spousal and child support has heard part of the now criminally-charged case against the Defendant and has been found to have ruled against the Defendant in the family court case approximately 20 times.

 The Defendant’s Ex-Wife, Kimberly Whitmore Sielski, who actually moved away from the State of Maryland with the parties’ minor child prior to any court approval, appears to be no stranger to the courtroom. In police records that were reviewed and verified, the ex-wife, is described as using a handgun to shoot  a previous intimate partner, her first husband, in 1993 which was later pled down to Reckless Endangerment, Battery, and Discharging a Firearm within city limits.

Family Rights and Equal Parenting advocates from across the country have come to Frederick, Maryland to observe the Circuit Court proceedings that are scheduled for 9am at the Frederick County Circuit Courthouse located at 101 W. Patrick Street, Frederick Maryland, 21701. Fliers, posters, and street rallies were organized over the weekend to alert the local community about what has been described by protesters as a “dysfunctional and destructive system that focuses on Federal incentives rather than the best interests of the children.”

Minister Ronald Smith of Grand Rapids, Michigan also attended events at the corner of Market Street and W. Patrick in downtown Frederick, just blocks away from the Courthouse. Minister Smith, Founder of Children Need Both Parents, Inc. states, “For the courts to threaten to take a Father away from his child for 20 years is preposterous and certainly not in the best interest of the child.  It is the courts obligation to maintain the relationship between the parent and child.  This is another case of another Judge endorsing single parenting.”

 “It’s a national epidemic; notwithstanding that Paul’s child support order is obviously excessive, ridiculous, and unable to be met.  Paul Sielski represents millions of people at any moment who would like to be parents to their children, but whose efforts are frustrated by the courts,” says Randall Scotti.

 “After being repeatedly beaten down and out spent, Paul froze in his attempt to nullify his marriage and void his divorce decree, a feeling many others experience.  Having everything ripped out from under him, he was left homeless, penniless, and unable to work after his clothing, automobile, and personal computers and papers were denied by his ex wife,” says second wife, Deborah Courtney.  She also states that “Fortunately, Paul has never felt the hopelessness that other fathers have felt, even in his dire circumstances and holds his head high and continues to maintain his dignity.”

Reacting to the number of murder suicides in Frederick County, a population of a mere 223,000, which experienced no less than its’ sixth family slaughtered by it’s own former breadwinner, Sielski could only say with tears in his eyes, “We didn’t give them hope and the necessary support, and instead just threatened to lock them all away and take their children from them,” even as he faces his own sentence.

XXXXXX

There is no question in my mind that 9 out of 10 fathers would have changed their minds with the choices that they made
if they would have known ahead of time what the outcome would have been with procreating.

Which one would you choose if you knew in advance?

THIS ONE? The Gold Digger.


OR

THIS ONE? The Equal Parent.

YOU BE THE JUDGE!

I think the world already knows your answer and so do the people that should be wearing these things. Because the people know the difference between right and wrong they try to hide who they really are until they can secure a child support order against an unwitting parent. Those that use their children as a source of income instead of raising their child with a balanced diet of a mother and a father should beashamed and required to be marked with the newest line in apparel like that above.

Let me know if you are interested in helping to make a skit like Saturday Night Live to promote equal parenting. Yes Yes, I know, to some this may be offensive but we have to change our marketing methods if we want to gain mainstream attention. If you would like to send a couple of pairs of these to your local child support enforcement office send me the location and who you would like me to send them attentioned to. This will be completely anonymous on your behalf.

State worker accused of taking child support money

The SeattlePI.Com website on November 16, 2007 reported yet another state worker taking child support money from children and families.

OLYMPIA, Wash. -- A state employee in Olympia who handled child support payments has been accused of taking $24,000 and spending the money at casinos.

As more audits begin to be conducted on the many unaccountable child support agencies across the nation, there is a high probability that more and more fraud will likely be exposed just like the above story. The child support programs across the nation are currently charged with handling billions of dollars on behalf of parents and families with very little accountable oversight. 

KTAR.COM (November 14th, 2007) recently ran an interesting report entitled Audit: Child Support Enforcement Needs Improvement but so does the reporting provided by KTAR.COM. Let's start with basic investigative reporting before just releasing a five paragraph report that is fairly vague with little to no follow-up. I posted follow-up comments regarding two key areas the article didn't touch on, with the first being undistributed collections and the second being who are actually benefiting from the program. The KTAR.COM after several days didn't approve the comments of anyone that was posting to their website.

Not only is there "room for improvements" in the Arizona child support program, but there is definitely room in KTAR.COM's reporting style so they just don't fall prey to serving a well-oiled government propaganda machine.

"The Auditor General's Office conducted a special review of the state Department of Economic Security's program to collect child support payments." Essentially the auditor general, according to the above article, states that there are room for improvements, suggested that the state track how long it takes to process court orders, there is no efficient way to determine how many payments are being misdirected.

My major problem with the lack of reporting is that the auditor general, according to this article, doesn't account for the $17,945,269.00 in 2005, leading to about $11,388,064 dollars being absorbed into the general fund as a result of their failure to distribute. This is actually a reward for poor performance. In 2006, $11,112,336 was the net undistributed collections with at least $5,318,124.00 qualifying so far for absorption into their budget. The State of Arizona doesn't explain why the children have not received these millions of dollars and why the State of Arizona is allowed to transfer undistributed collections to their own budget instead of back to the paying parents.

Furthermore, the report does not talk about the massive number of NEVER ASSISTANCE or FORMER ASSISTANCE members that are receiving child support services opposed to the very small number of actual needy families that receive the child support collection benefit on taxpayer dime. The number of participants that should not be receiving services are also climbing at a higher rate than those of people that are actually receiving the benefits as a result of being engaged in other forms of government assistance.

In 2006, only $11,834,544 was collected for actual needy families which almost equals the amount that was actually undistributed by the State of Arizona!!! This is a very telling story showing how ineffective the child support program actually is. Interestingly, about 7 times the amount of support collected for needy families number was collected by the government, $97,456,711, which is an 8.1% gain over 2005, for families that receive no government assistance at all. Another $173,422,153.00, a 7.1% gain over 2005, was collected for families that are not on current assistance programs, but may have been in the past. As you can tell the program does not serve needy families at all when you demonstate the money being retained by the state.

There is definitely a need for further audits by the Auditor General in Arizona to explain why the program was not fully investigated and certainly questions directed to the staff at KTAR.COM on why they are assisting in suppressing the truth about the ineffective program. Rest assured your comments will not be suppressed at this website.

An accurate representation of someone's pockets when they enter the anti-family court system. Be sure to log on to http://www.getyourjusticelive.com.

If our fine state is willing to send a parent that is behind but is currently paying to jail, who benefits?

What about the custodial parents who become
accustomed to receiving weekly payments that now stop while we -- the
public -- become responsible through public assistance?

Does
the public that is now paying to house the "deadbeat parent" in jail
benefit? At a minimum of $30 a day, which I'm sure is conservative, it
will cost us $10,800 to house one person a year. If a person is two
years at $20,000 and given a two-year sentence, they are now $40,000
behind and the public has paid almost $22,000 to house them in jail.

Do
the children that have lost a parent for that two years and get to say,
"My dad can't take me to Cub Scouts because he's in jail," benefit?

Do employers who lose employees because they are now in jail benefit?